Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The fallacies of GLEP55

[Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3092 bytes --]

On Sun, 17 May 2009 04:07:18 +0000 (UTC)
Mark Bateman <couldbe@soon.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 May 2009 21:58:10 +0000 (UTC)
> > Mark Bateman <couldbe <at> soon.com> wrote:
> > > "The current way of specifying the EAPI in ebuilds is flawed"
> > > That is not defining the problem, that is an opening statement.
> > 
> > That is the problem.
> No, that is a summary of the problem. Not once has the actual problem
> been described or documented.

...except where it's described right at the start of the GLEP, under
the 'Problem' section.

> Until such information is provided continued discussion of this GLEP
> is not going to progress since words like *obviously* are substituted
> for actual facts, a substitution which does not provide anything new
> to this discussion 

You are expected to have a basic understanding of the material under
discussion before joining in. Although it might be nice to live in
magic fairy land where everyone has time to explain every single issue
at a level sufficient for a three year old who does not speak English
to be able to understand it, in reality we have to expect you to
understand the basics before getting involved.

> > > However, this is not the only method to determine the EAPI of an
> > > ebuild that exists and as such the viability of GLEP55 as the best
> > > solution is brought into question
> > 
> > Yes, it is the only method.
> No it is the only method you are willing to accept, there is a big
> difference. Many people have mentioned in passing other means of
> determining the EAPI of an ebuild pre-sourcing (thus allowing the PM
> to source the correct eclass or flag up warnings...) YET they have
> just been shot down with no actual technical reason, except "they do
> not involve coding the EAPI into the filename".

Uhm. Please go back and re-read both the GLEP and the threads. Claiming
"no actual technical reason" when actual technical reasons have been
provided is not helping anyone.

> > > Where is it defined that the ebuild must be sourced 1st?
> > > Why does the ebuild have to be sourced 1st?
> > 
> > Such things are obviously true to anyone with a basic understanding
> > of the domain.
> So you are unable to actually reference any credible source of
> information to back up your claims then.

Uhm. No. Go and look at how any of the package managers work. Go and
read PMS. Notice how, by the very definition of EAPI, the only way you
can get EAPI at present is to source the ebuild.

> > Please make sure you're familiar with the basics of how metadata
> > works before commenting any further.
> > 
> What has my understanding or lack of understanding of "metadata" have
> to do with my statement that other means exist to determine the EAPI
> of an ebuild before sourcing said ebuild? This is meant to be a
> discussion about "The fallacies of GLEP55" 

Uhm. EAPI is, at present, a metadata variable. If you don't even know
that, what on earth are you doing talking in this thread? Please stop
wasting everyone's time.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]