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 1NKdxu-0005qP-Np for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:25:50 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5244FE1518 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:25:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from amun.cheops.ods.org (amun.cheops.ods.org [82.95.138.191]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0E73E0FBA for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:00:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tefnut.cheops.ods.org ([2001:888:1022:0:211:24ff:fe37:e46e] helo=gentoo.org) by amun.cheops.ods.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NKcd2-0005JN-2A for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:00:12 +0100 Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:59:44 +0100 From: Fabian Groffen To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] EAPI={3,4} offset-prefix semantics mandatory? Message-ID: <20091215185944.GA9600@gentoo.org> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org 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: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (Darwin 8.11.0, VIM - Vi IMproved 7.2) Organization: Gentoo Foundation, Inc. X-Content-Scanned: by amun.cheops.ods.org (Exim Exiscan) using SpamAssassin and ClamAV X-Archives-Salt: bcf984ab-03c4-4e07-9984-647ca79833cd X-Archives-Hash: bbadeffac202df43a276272dd39297c1 With the current route where EAPI=3 will simply be EAPI=2 + offset-prefix support, and EAPI=4 will be EAPI=3 + some other stuff, the following question arose: Should an ebuild using an EAPI that has offset-prefix support make the use of that support mandatory or optional? In other words, one can perfectly fine write an ebuild EAPI=3 that will not work in an offset-prefix install, due to improper absence of EPREFIX, ED and EROOT. Should we allow this formally, or not? Why is this a problem? Simply because it can be done, but more because EAPI=4 will introduce features a developer would like to use/rely on, while she/he does not want, or is not able to write the ebuild in a Prefix conforming way. The pros for forcing ebuilds to be offset-prefix aware are: - an ebuild having EAPI >= 3 (as it looks now) is supposed to work for Prefix users - hence also obviously is (supposed to be) checked for Prefix - repoman might be able to check for obvious mistakes regarding offset-prefix installations The cons: - all developers need to be aware of how Prefix works, and be able to write ebuilds for it (I can post all the answers to the Prefix quiz) - basically requires a Prefix to be setup to test - it will stop developers to some degree to use higher EAPIs in the worst case The pros for allowing ebuilds that have an offset-prefix aware EAPI to ignore the offset-prefix are: - easy drop-in replacement for devs, basically the contra of all the cons of the previous approach. The cons: - not immediately clear which ebuild is offset-prefix aware (could look at Prefix keywords) - needs proper rules; an ebuild that has offset-prefix support may not have this support removed again (breaks Prefix users, how to enforce?) - ebuilds may get offset-prefix support at a later stage, which may not entirely be understood/noticed by (their maintaining) devs Please voice your opinion and share your insights, if any. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level