From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAA5A1384B4 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 12:18:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 923B921C064; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 12:18:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A423421C011 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 12:18:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (dra13-4-78-234-166-189.fbx.proxad.net [78.234.166.189]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: aballier) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1175B34070A for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 12:18:14 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 13:18:09 +0100 From: Alexis Ballier To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: Replacement for versionator.eclass in PMS (for EAPI 7?) Message-ID: <20151202131809.5bd3dd25@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <22110.56899.534907.395201@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> References: <22106.6463.805834.391338@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20151202120332.25387828@gentoo.org> <22110.56899.534907.395201@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.0 (GTK+ 2.24.28; 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: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 33a57e3f-54fc-4629-b548-4d351005edfd X-Archives-Hash: 9b4de7e28200601be28091409c1425e4 On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 13:04:19 +0100 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >>>>> On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > What's the point, need or advantage in moving this to > > all-ebuild-scope? > > > Usually eclass refactor/api cleanup are done in a -r{n+1} while > > deprecating -rn. This would have the advantage that you can quickly > > post a complete implementation and get wider reviews. > > A proof-of-concept implementation for the two version manipulation > functions is here: > https://482170.bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=418072 > Add some comments and you'll have a working eclass. :) Yes, but I don't see the point of defining bash code in PMS and copy/pasting it in every compliant PM, when said code used to be in only one place. Sounds like a "regression" to me. [...] > Also version_test is missing, but the idea there was to avoid > redundancy and use the implementation that already exists in the > package manager (which does version comparison all the time). This is > one of the reasons for moving it to the package manager. well, then maybe version_test is the only one that makes sense to be added to PM. Though it is unclear to me how to interface it: spawning a python interp. every time the function is called doesn't seem to be a terrible idea wrt performance.