Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI)

[Richard Freeman <rich@thefreemanclan.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3279 bytes --]

Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 06:01:04PM +0800, Zhang Le wrote:
>> All could be get before sourcing.
>> I know you'd say people will use all syntaxes to define. But how many are
>> there? EAPI=1, EAPI="1" these are the two ways currently used in tree.
>> A simple qgrep can show that.
>> Two steps can guarantee you get the value
>> 1. strip "
>> 2. get the value
> 
> And then you are stuck FOREVER into defining EAPI as a variable.
> 

And with the proposed GLEP you are stuck FOREVER into defining EAPI as
part of the filename.  What's the difference?

> You clearly haven't read anything on this thread. I suggest you go and
> do so before making a fool of yourself again. Please.

I doubt that they have failed to see that this reply has been made
before.  Very little has been posted in the last day on this thread that
hasn't already been posted the day before.  The issue isn't that people
are too dumb to realize the limitations of putting "EAPI=foo" in their
ebuilds - the issue is that many don't believe that this is much of a
limitation.  However, nobody wants to stop replying because they're
probably concerned that their ignoring this thread will be accepted as
evidence of acceptance of the proposal.

> 
> Please guys, keep in mind that the fact that some of you understand what
> a filename is and are able to provide simple commands that extract a
> particular line from a file does not entitle you with the knowdledge
> required to contribute something useful to this discussion.

This really isn't helpful.  It is essentially an ad-hominum argument.
The fundamental issue is that there is a disagreement over whether
leaving things as they are currently is a major problem.  If others
don't have the knowledge necessary to contribute something useful then
take the time to educate them - don't tell them to just be quiet.  The
number of replies in this thread obviously indicates that we're not
talking about 1-2 people who aren't quite sure what is going on and 200
people that clearly agree with the merits of this proposal.  If so many
people can't see the value in this GLEP then perhaps it isn't adequately
explained?

As I see it, the only real advantage of changing filenames vs a variable
with formatting requirements (thus allowing it to be scanned without
sourcing the ebuild) seems to be that it will prevent current package
managers from breaking when they source an ebuild due to new global
functions.  The only other objection I've seen raised is that the
variable approach limits your future options regarding content - but I
don't see that as being really any worse than limiting the filename.
Either way its a few bytes in a particular spot on the disk - why is one
better than the other?

I'm actually warming up to this proposal a little, but those in favor of
it would do well to address concerns and discuss them with those who
raise them (possibly by irc/off-list-email as needed) and not just tell
them to be quiet about it.  The goal isn't to bash everybody in to
submission within 2 days so that the GLEP can get approved - the goal is
to gather input so that the GLEP can be as good as possible when it is
approved.  You don't need to completely agree with your critics to at
least consider their objections.

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 4101 bytes --]