[gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI="3" ebuilds

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI="3" ebuilds

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 335 bytes --]

I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of features of
bash-4.0 (and older versions) in local scope of EAPI="3" ebuilds.

I know that it's slightly late, but this change is very easy to implement
(adjusting RDEPEND of new versions of package managers and updating PMS).

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI="3" ebuilds

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 894 bytes --]

On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:20:21 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever.fta@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of features of
> bash-4.0 (and older versions) in local scope of EAPI="3" ebuilds.
> 
> I know that it's slightly late, but this change is very easy to
> implement (adjusting RDEPEND of new versions of package managers and
> updating PMS).

No good, for two reasons.

First, this is a global scope change, and we can't make global scope
changes to EAPIs using current mechanisms. EAPIs have to carry on using
bash 3 until the EAPI mechanism is changed.

Second, by order of the Council, EAPI 3's feature list was locked
several weeks ago. If we ignore that for one thing, it just means
everyone else who had features that came along too late will start
demanding we reconsider those too...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI="3" ebuilds

[Piotr Jaroszyński]

2009/5/17 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever.fta@gmail.com>:
> I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of features of
> bash-4.0 (and older versions) in local scope of EAPI="3" ebuilds.

This is glep 55 material. I will update it to reflect that.

-- 
Best Regards,
Piotr Jaroszyński

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI="3" ebuilds

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1278 bytes --]

2009-05-17 18:37:32 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:20:21 +0200
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever.fta@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of features of
> > bash-4.0 (and older versions) in local scope of EAPI="3" ebuilds.
> > 
> > I know that it's slightly late, but this change is very easy to
> > implement (adjusting RDEPEND of new versions of package managers and
> > updating PMS).
> 
> No good, for two reasons.
> 
> First, this is a global scope change

Why do you think that it is a global scope change?

> and we can't make global scope
> changes to EAPIs using current mechanisms. EAPIs have to carry on using
> bash 3 until the EAPI mechanism is changed.

IMHO ebuilds are allowed to set DEPEND=">=app-shells/bash-4.0" and use
bash-4.0 features anyway, but it would be easier to just set appropriate EAPI
in ebuilds.

> Second, by order of the Council, EAPI 3's feature list was locked
> several weeks ago. If we ignore that for one thing, it just means
> everyone else who had features that came along too late will start
> demanding we reconsider those too...

IMHO addition of this feature would be acceptable.

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI="3" ebuilds

[Piotr Jaroszyński]

2009/5/17 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever.fta@gmail.com>:
> 2009-05-17 18:37:32 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
>> On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:20:21 +0200
>> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever.fta@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of features of
>> > bash-4.0 (and older versions) in local scope of EAPI="3" ebuilds.
>> >
>> > I know that it's slightly late, but this change is very easy to
>> > implement (adjusting RDEPEND of new versions of package managers and
>> > updating PMS).
>>
>> No good, for two reasons.
>>
>> First, this is a global scope change
>
> Why do you think that it is a global scope change?

I have updated the glep, see how it breaks [1].

[1] - http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0055.html#use-newer-bash-features

-- 
Best Regards,
Piotr Jaroszyński

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI="3" ebuilds

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1390 bytes --]

On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:58:58 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever.fta@gmail.com> wrote:
> > No good, for two reasons.
> > 
> > First, this is a global scope change
> 
> Why do you think that it is a global scope change?

Package managers still need to be able to get the EAPI, even if they
don't support newer EAPIs, which means you're restricted to using syntax
that bash-3 can parse. Although you can sneak some bash-4 features
through bash-3's parser, it gets extremely confusing.

> > and we can't make global scope
> > changes to EAPIs using current mechanisms. EAPIs have to carry on
> > using bash 3 until the EAPI mechanism is changed.
> 
> IMHO ebuilds are allowed to set DEPEND=">=app-shells/bash-4.0" and use
> bash-4.0 features anyway, but it would be easier to just set
> appropriate EAPI in ebuilds.

Er, no. An ebuild's deps aren't met when the package manager generates
metadata from the ebuild.

> > Second, by order of the Council, EAPI 3's feature list was locked
> > several weeks ago. If we ignore that for one thing, it just means
> > everyone else who had features that came along too late will start
> > demanding we reconsider those too...
> 
> IMHO addition of this feature would be acceptable.

You could say that about any feature, but the Council chose to just go
with an absolute cutoff.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI="3" ebuilds

[Ben de Groot]

Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> 2009-05-17 18:37:32 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
>> On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:20:21 +0200
>> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever.fta@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of features of
>>> bash-4.0 (and older versions) in local scope of EAPI="3" ebuilds.
>>>
>>> I know that it's slightly late, but this change is very easy to
>>> implement (adjusting RDEPEND of new versions of package managers and
>>> updating PMS).
>> No good, for two reasons.
>>
>> First, this is a global scope change
> 
> Why do you think that it is a global scope change?

Because he wants to push GLEP 55.

-- 
Ben de Groot
Gentoo Linux developer (qt, media, lxde, desktop-misc)
Gentoo Linux Release Engineering PR liaison
______________________________________________________

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI="3" ebuilds

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 391 bytes --]

On Sun, 17 May 2009 21:22:57 +0200
Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Why do you think that it is a global scope change?
> 
> Because he wants to push GLEP 55.

Ben, please stop that and apologise for your behaviour. It's already
been explained why changing bash versions is a global scope change, so
you've got no excuse for posting such nonsense.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI="3" ebuilds

[Piotr Jaroszyński]

2009/5/17 Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org>:
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
>> 2009-05-17 18:37:32 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
>>> On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:20:21 +0200
>>> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever.fta@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of features of
>>>> bash-4.0 (and older versions) in local scope of EAPI="3" ebuilds.
>>>>
>>>> I know that it's slightly late, but this change is very easy to
>>>> implement (adjusting RDEPEND of new versions of package managers and
>>>> updating PMS).
>>> No good, for two reasons.
>>>
>>> First, this is a global scope change
>>
>> Why do you think that it is a global scope change?
>
> Because he wants to push GLEP 55.

Would you care to look at [1] and see how it breaks first before
posting BS like that? Better yet test it youtself.

[1] - http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0055.html#use-newer-bash-features

-- 
Best Regards,
Piotr Jaroszyński

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI="3" ebuilds

[Ben de Groot]

Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> 2009/5/17 Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org>:
>> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
>>> 2009-05-17 18:37:32 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
>>>> On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:20:21 +0200
>>>> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever.fta@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of features of
>>>>> bash-4.0 (and older versions) in local scope of EAPI="3" ebuilds.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know that it's slightly late, but this change is very easy to
>>>>> implement (adjusting RDEPEND of new versions of package managers and
>>>>> updating PMS).
>>>> No good, for two reasons.
>>>>
>>>> First, this is a global scope change
>>> Why do you think that it is a global scope change?
>> Because he wants to push GLEP 55.
> 
> Would you care to look at [1] and see how it breaks first before
> posting BS like that? Better yet test it youtself.
> 
> [1] - http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0055.html#use-newer-bash-features
> 
Okay, after reading the updated GLEP, I see what you mean. Let's
continue to discuss this in the GLEP 55 updated thread, and I promise to
be more constructive.

-- 
Ben de Groot
Gentoo Linux developer (qt, media, lxde, desktop-misc)
Gentoo Linux Release Engineering PR liaison
______________________________________________________

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI="3" ebuilds

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1568 bytes --]

2009-05-17 19:02:02 Piotr Jaroszyński napisał(a):
> 2009/5/17 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever.fta@gmail.com>:
> > 2009-05-17 18:37:32 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
> >> On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:20:21 +0200
> >> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever.fta@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of features of
> >> > bash-4.0 (and older versions) in local scope of EAPI="3" ebuilds.
> >> >
> >> > I know that it's slightly late, but this change is very easy to
> >> > implement (adjusting RDEPEND of new versions of package managers and
> >> > updating PMS).
> >>
> >> No good, for two reasons.
> >>
> >> First, this is a global scope change
> >
> > Why do you think that it is a global scope change?
> 
> I have updated the glep, see how it breaks [1].
> 
> [1] - http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0055.html#use-newer-bash-features

This error occurs only when there is no up-to-date cache for given ebuild.
rsync users would see only the usual "masked by: EAPI 3" message.

Here's the updated version of my proposition:

* bash-4.0 features are allowed in EAPI="3" (global scope and local scope).

* bash-4.0 features temporarily shouldn't be used in gentoo-x86 repository
  until 1 month has passed since stabilization of =app-shells/bash-4.0* on
  all architectures. It will give Gentoo developers sufficient time to update
  app-shells/bash. (app-shells/bash used on system, which generates cache,
  also should be updated.)

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI="3" ebuilds

[Piotr Jaroszyński]

2009/5/20 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever@gentoo.org>:
> 2009-05-17 19:02:02 Piotr Jaroszyński napisał(a):
>> 2009/5/17 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever.fta@gmail.com>:
>> > 2009-05-17 18:37:32 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
>> >> On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:20:21 +0200
>> >> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever.fta@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of features of
>> >> > bash-4.0 (and older versions) in local scope of EAPI="3" ebuilds.
>> >> >
>> >> > I know that it's slightly late, but this change is very easy to
>> >> > implement (adjusting RDEPEND of new versions of package managers and
>> >> > updating PMS).
>> >>
>> >> No good, for two reasons.
>> >>
>> >> First, this is a global scope change
>> >
>> > Why do you think that it is a global scope change?
>>
>> I have updated the glep, see how it breaks [1].
>>
>> [1] - http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0055.html#use-newer-bash-features
>
> This error occurs only when there is no up-to-date cache for given ebuild.
> rsync users would see only the usual "masked by: EAPI 3" message.

Relying on cache being valid is doomed to fail. Among other things,
what about overlays?

-- 
Best Regards,
Piotr Jaroszyński

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI="3" ebuilds

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1580 bytes --]

2009-05-20 19:29:12 Piotr Jaroszyński napisał(a):
> 2009/5/20 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever@gentoo.org>:
> > 2009-05-17 19:02:02 Piotr Jaroszyński napisał(a):
> >> 2009/5/17 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever.fta@gmail.com>:
> >> > 2009-05-17 18:37:32 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
> >> >> On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:20:21 +0200
> >> >> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever.fta@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of features of
> >> >> > bash-4.0 (and older versions) in local scope of EAPI="3" ebuilds.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I know that it's slightly late, but this change is very easy to
> >> >> > implement (adjusting RDEPEND of new versions of package managers and
> >> >> > updating PMS).
> >> >>
> >> >> No good, for two reasons.
> >> >>
> >> >> First, this is a global scope change
> >> >
> >> > Why do you think that it is a global scope change?
> >>
> >> I have updated the glep, see how it breaks [1].
> >>
> >> [1] - http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0055.html#use-newer-bash-features
> >
> > This error occurs only when there is no up-to-date cache for given ebuild.
> > rsync users would see only the usual "masked by: EAPI 3" message.
> 
> Relying on cache being valid is doomed to fail. Among other things,
> what about overlays?

People managing overlays can temporarily disallow using bash-4.0 features
in their overlays or they can drop support for bash-3, but it is outside
of scope of my proposition.

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI="3" ebuilds

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 566 bytes --]

On Wed, 20 May 2009 19:12:56 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever@gentoo.org> wrote:
> This error occurs only when there is no up-to-date cache for given
> ebuild. rsync users would see only the usual "masked by: EAPI 3"
> message.

We always have to assume that there might not be an up to date cache.
The Gentoo rsync mirrors do not always ship up to date cache,
particularly if someone's just changed a widely used eclass.

Newer bash is not something that can be done as an EAPI change with
current mechanisms.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI="3" ebuilds

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 767 bytes --]

2009-05-20 20:00:43 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
> On Wed, 20 May 2009 19:12:56 +0200
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > This error occurs only when there is no up-to-date cache for given
> > ebuild. rsync users would see only the usual "masked by: EAPI 3"
> > message.
> 
> We always have to assume that there might not be an up to date cache.
> The Gentoo rsync mirrors do not always ship up to date cache,
> particularly if someone's just changed a widely used eclass.

Users can wait an hour and run `emerge --sync` again.
Anyway, Portage still allows to install other ebuilds (with lower EAPI)
of given package, so this corner case doesn't need to slow down progress.

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI="3" ebuilds

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 708 bytes --]

On Thu, 21 May 2009 19:57:49 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > We always have to assume that there might not be an up to date
> > cache. The Gentoo rsync mirrors do not always ship up to date cache,
> > particularly if someone's just changed a widely used eclass.
> 
> Users can wait an hour and run `emerge --sync` again.

...but that's not what happens. Instead, the users get their screen
spammed with annoying messages, get confused and run to bugzilla in
droves.

This just takes us right back to the bad old days when changing
anything would result in mass user confusion. The whole 'EAPI' thing
wasn't an arbitrary whim.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

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

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI="3" ebuilds

[Duncan]

Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever@gentoo.org> posted
200905211957.55040.Arfrever@gentoo.org, excerpted below, on  Thu, 21 May
2009 19:57:49 +0200:

> 2009-05-20 20:00:43 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
>> On Wed, 20 May 2009 19:12:56 +0200
>> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> > This error occurs only when there is no up-to-date cache for given
>> > ebuild. rsync users would see only the usual "masked by: EAPI 3"
>> > message.
>> 
>> We always have to assume that there might not be an up to date cache.
>> The Gentoo rsync mirrors do not always ship up to date cache,
>> particularly if someone's just changed a widely used eclass.
> 
> Users can wait an hour and run `emerge --sync` again. Anyway, Portage
> still allows to install other ebuilds (with lower EAPI) of given
> package, so this corner case doesn't need to slow down progress.

Except that users are STRONGLY encouraged (on threat of ban) from syncing 
more than once a day.  A 24-hour wait can seem like a long time, 
especially when you're doing your weekly update on your one off day a 
week, so it's effectively a 7-day wait, or you were updating your folks 
computer on holiday and it could be a multi-month wait, or when 
something's broken that you're depending on to make that presentation in 
the morning and you know the new version fixes it because the bug said so.

If we're going to be saying wait an hour, then let's get rid of the wait 
24-hours thing.  Otherwise, that's mixed messages to users and as Ciaran 
points out, users get confused by such things.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI="3" ebuilds

[Steven J Long]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> On Thu, 21 May 2009 19:57:49 +0200
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> > We always have to assume that there might not be an up to date
>> > cache. The Gentoo rsync mirrors do not always ship up to date cache,
>> > particularly if someone's just changed a widely used eclass.
>> 
>> Users can wait an hour and run `emerge --sync` again.
> 
> ...but that's not what happens. Instead, the users get their screen
> spammed with annoying messages,
Er I think you're confusing paludis and portage.

> get confused and run to bugzilla in droves.
>
Nice to see you have such a high opinion of our users.

IME users are more than happy to wait a bit and sync. I agree there's
work crying out to be done to make things more convenient. Your GLEPs
don't begin to address those issues, unfortunately.

Here, this sums up what's wrong with most of your cockamamy ideas (as
attractive, and oh so right, as they may seem to you now):

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s07.html

To paraphrase you: Go and read it and don't come back til you've
actually understood the concepts.

> This just takes us right back to the bad old days when changing
> anything would result in mass user confusion. The whole 'EAPI' thing
> wasn't an arbitrary whim.
>
Nor was it supposed to be a six-monthly dump to the list along with a
whole slew of new, half-baked 'proposals' "everyone has to comply" with
as "it's in PMS."

Abuse of process doesn't make you right; it just makes you annoying.

-- 
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI="3" ebuilds

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1921 bytes --]

On Sun, 24 May 2009 21:31:56 +0100
Steven J Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
> > ...but that's not what happens. Instead, the users get their screen
> > spammed with annoying messages,
>
> Er I think you're confusing paludis and portage.

Er. No. As you would know had you read GLEP 55, Portage is noisy if you
use bash 4 features in an ebuild and it doesn't have metadata.

> > get confused and run to bugzilla in droves.
> >
> Nice to see you have such a high opinion of our users.

You mean, nice to see that I was around and watching what happened back
when we didn't have EAPIs to protect us from this sort of thing?

> Here, this sums up what's wrong with most of your cockamamy ideas (as
> attractive, and oh so right, as they may seem to you now):
> 
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s07.html
> 
> To paraphrase you: Go and read it and don't come back til you've
> actually understood the concepts.

Sorry, you don't get to post that kind of response until you start
being right. In light of you being wrong (see above), please apologise
and retract your remarks.

> > This just takes us right back to the bad old days when changing
> > anything would result in mass user confusion. The whole 'EAPI' thing
> > wasn't an arbitrary whim.
>
> Nor was it supposed to be a six-monthly dump to the list along with a
> whole slew of new, half-baked 'proposals' "everyone has to comply"
> with as "it's in PMS."
> 
> Abuse of process doesn't make you right; it just makes you annoying.

If you have a problem with the EAPI process, I suggest you take it up
with the Council. But given they've recently voted that everyone has to
comply with PMS or get p.masked, and that we'll do new EAPIs whenever
there are features available, and that they considered the EAPI 3
feature list to be appropriate, I doubt you'll get very far.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI="3" ebuilds

[Patrick Lauer]

On Sunday 24 May 2009 22:43:52 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> > Here, this sums up what's wrong with most of your cockamamy ideas (as
> > attractive, and oh so right, as they may seem to you now):
> >
> > http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s07.html
> >
> > To paraphrase you: Go and read it and don't come back til you've
> > actually understood the concepts.
>
> Sorry, you don't get to post that kind of response until you start
> being right. In light of you being wrong (see above), please apologise
> and retract your remarks.

Ciaran,

this mailinglist is not your personal playground. As you obviously can't even 
be bothered to reflect on other peoples statements without reflex-posting 
something unrelated I must ask you to stop spamming us. It's just not funny 
anymore.

Okay, yes, Mr. Long was quite rude there (trying to fight fire with fire I 
guess). But in this case you're discussing rather subjective things again (how 
often is it the case that you don't have a cache?) that might not even be a 
problem. And, as you consistently don't read any arguments that might 
interfere with how you want reality to be, sometimes people use harsher 
language in the hope of making you read (and maybe even understand) their 
argument.

Now please stop playing the drama queen, stop spamming (yes, replying to every 
mail is spamming) and maybe we can return to a technical discussion, as this 
mailinglist was originally intended (or so I hope).

Thanks in advance,

your friendly neighborhood kitten.

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI="3" ebuilds

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1463 bytes --]

2009-05-17 18:20:21 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis napisał(a):
> I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of features of
> bash-4.0 (and older versions) in local scope of EAPI="3" ebuilds.
> 
> I know that it's slightly late, but this change is very easy to implement
> (adjusting RDEPEND of new versions of package managers and updating PMS).

Zac Medico doesn't have objections to this proposition, so I hope that Council
will approve it.

From #gentoo-portage:
[22:40:11] <Arfrever> zmedico: What is your opinion about allowing bash-4.0 features in EAPI="3"?
...
[22:55:03] <zmedico> Arfrever: that's fine with me
...
[22:56:15] <Arfrever> zmedico: Could you respond to the thread on gentoo-dev mailing list about it?
...
[22:56:59] <tanderson> I'd not mind seeing bash 4 in eapi 3; and I don't buy ciaran's argument that it'll open the door for all the other latecomers
[22:57:20] igli takes out life-insurance on tanderson ;p
[22:57:22] <zmedico> Arfrever: can you just respond for me and say "zac says it's okay with him"? :)
[22:58:52] zmedico is migrating his thunderbird pop setup to use all imap and filters in gmial
[22:58:55] <zmedico> *gmail
[22:59:08] <tanderson> igli: disagreeing technically isn't something that can get you killed! You're notplaying the odds well my friend
[22:59:23] <Arfrever> zmedico: OK.
[22:59:34] <zmedico> Arfrever: thanks a lot :)

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI="3" ebuilds

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 673 bytes --]

On Sun, 24 May 2009 23:16:13 +0200
Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Okay, yes, Mr. Long was quite rude there (trying to fight fire with
> fire I guess). But in this case you're discussing rather subjective
> things again (how often is it the case that you don't have a cache?)
> that might not even be a problem.

This is not in the least bit subjective. You don't have cache:

* for any overlays you use
* often enough for the main tree that we get people asking about it in
  #paludis, since Paludis warns if it encounters stale cache files.

We know full well that this is a real problem. Stop pretending that it
isn't.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI="3" ebuilds

[Patrick Lauer]

On Sunday 24 May 2009 23:22:21 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 24 May 2009 23:16:13 +0200
>
> Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Okay, yes, Mr. Long was quite rude there (trying to fight fire with
> > fire I guess). But in this case you're discussing rather subjective
> > things again (how often is it the case that you don't have a cache?)
> > that might not even be a problem.
>
> This is not in the least bit subjective. You don't have cache:
>
> * for any overlays you use
Only partially correct (but you knew that already, so I won't bother repeating 
it)
And with overlays you have _no_ guarantees anyway. Plus portage spews a nice 
warning if you play around with eclasses, which many users parse as an error. 
So that's not an issue anyway ... overlays are unsupported territory where the 
only assumption you can make is that things might not work (but surprisingly 
often they do)

> * often enough for the main tree that we get people asking about it in
>   #paludis, since Paludis warns if it encounters stale cache files.
Haven't seen that with portage (well duh), and if it really is a problem maybe 
we should ask grobian how he made the prefix rsync checkout consistent. 
Y'know, if it is a problem fix the problem.

> We know full well that this is a real problem. Stop pretending that it
> isn't.
Well, we don't. Hmm, who is we in this context? Would be much nicer if we 
stopped using the pluralis majestatis to make us look more important. Anyways, 
if it is a problem it's mostly an issue of the cache generation, which is 
trivially fixed, or it's not a problem, in which case it is fixed already. Or 
it is an issue for everyone doing unsupported things, in which case ... it is 
not an issue. Because it's unsupported. 

So what was our point again? 

Anyways, this is going round and round in circles until someone gets dizzy and 
throws up. Not the best way to "discuss", and I'm getting really bored with 
it.