Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for May 28

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

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2119 bytes --]

On Thu, 28 May 2009 21:19:35 +0200
Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
> You know, usually snipping away everything else is a bit evil because
> it removes context, but in this case I just want to point out one or
> two little pieces ...

Because you know fine well I'm right, but want to carry on trying to
derail progress?

> I almost feel bad for writing so many emails to this list.

Yes, please stop.

> > > For example a readonly repository would guarantee that the cache
> > > is always consistent.
> >
> > Until someone modifies it, yes.
> >
> Well. DUH. That's why it is readonly. Otherwise it wouldn't be
> readonly.

And just how do you plan to enforce that? What measures will you take
to ensure that there's no way for developers or users to modify the
repository?

> > > > It is the best. If we're requiring EAPI before trying to parse
> > > > PV, all the EAPIs have to be known to do any ordering.
> > >
> > > ... and why the [censored] would we want that then?
> >
> > Because without that, we can't make changes to the version format.
> 
> ... why?

Why what? Why can't we make changes, or why would we want to?

We can't make changes because the package manager needs to know the
EAPI in order to parse versions, since once we make changes versions
will be defined in terms of EAPI.

We want to make changes because, as has been stated several times
previously, allowing 1.1_rc1 but forbidding 1.1-rc1 is entirely silly
and arbitrary.

> > > It would help if you would tolerate other opinions (or even the
> > > possibility that other people may have opinions that do not agree
> > > with you).
> >
> > The only issue of opinion is whether or not .ebuild-X and .eapi-X.eb
> > look pretty. The rest is purely technical and entirely objective.
> 
> I think I have pointed you a few times at objective statements
> disagreeing with your subjective opinion. I hate repeating myself.

And yet you keep ignoring the part where GLEP 55 demonstrates
objectively that the extension solution is better than the alternatives.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

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