From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1M9lFd-0005LB-Bc for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 28 May 2009 19:26:54 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D4A77E0361; Thu, 28 May 2009 19:26:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-fx0-f219.google.com (mail-fx0-f219.google.com [209.85.220.219]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81010E0361 for ; Thu, 28 May 2009 19:26:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm19 with SMTP id 19so5127004fxm.34 for ; Thu, 28 May 2009 12:26:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:mime-version :content-type; bh=fVnszkggWvcQPQJCbxDHh/umjE6/Dpz79mfbFT5EUSQ=; b=iBuL28MdGFZ2Zx7F3qKNNF4LWw9G5XnHRKmFLkC9RTDMcMvoTj6mntQH//SQUVtem0 5PtvqytkL7zR8xmJFiszK3nwj/dIHhYPHk78L7u6vAaqaq2dQ7bNY29njC4KAQ6Ua8qs nfM5PRovsTqaw994DxwsdY9Qe7uaUDrf+6pcM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; b=aeCMRKYJOf6/8zD82SpqEsdIFxL6+t1Iw2R5x3lU8G8A9RdMLjttTrfX4DjJuKcAfu fDxzZQ7kfBjwRl0uhnZn6GrCdQ9ynVwvNUHONkJ/fYN17HRZc+S1/kVxpRCrjOLydk10 Gdn3ImhlbX5/BDCE6TjdpRzPiJvYY0bb9lxpQ= Received: by 10.86.98.7 with SMTP id v7mr1916322fgb.58.1243538810909; Thu, 28 May 2009 12:26:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snowcone (92-235-187-79.cable.ubr18.sgyl.blueyonder.co.uk [92.235.187.79]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 4sm6122147fge.8.2009.05.28.12.26.50 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 28 May 2009 12:26:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 20:26:43 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for May 28 Message-ID: <20090528202643.0d763768@snowcone> In-Reply-To: <200905282119.35666.patrick@gentoo.org> References: <1243489596.10450.24.camel@localhost> <200905282030.44496.patrick@gentoo.org> <20090528194845.30a7c9ad@snowcone> <200905282119.35666.patrick@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.1 (GTK+ 2.14.7; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/QvPKaCXhSAQ2EEng8pXS=PS"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: c7d871a2-8f3d-4efe-8746-5bbd7a4c3e5a X-Archives-Hash: 0494a80ceb59e92d173ba71b0ea0e705 --Sig_/QvPKaCXhSAQ2EEng8pXS=PS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 28 May 2009 21:19:35 +0200 Patrick Lauer 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. >=20 > ... 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. >=20 > 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. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/QvPKaCXhSAQ2EEng8pXS=PS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkoe5XcACgkQ96zL6DUtXhHuKACfdrPqhq4dTORNkZnQj4OTiZxw uNYAn1hfQjCQGKFy48wp4kllajnM242o =DKqC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/QvPKaCXhSAQ2EEng8pXS=PS--