From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LbtIJ-0000Wt-4F for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:09:40 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E6E2FE034B; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:09:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5646E034B for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:09:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.92] (83-103-77-215.ip.fastwebnet.it [83.103.77.215]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB5E564BBF; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:09:29 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <49A3B947.2020907@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:09:27 +0100 From: Luca Barbato User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (X11/20081205) 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 To: Alistair Bush CC: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009) References: <1234257125.18160.2016.camel@localhost> <1234450419.20950.2.camel@localhost> <20090212160045.GB3642@comet> <20090212161644.GD3642@comet> <20090212162103.256b003f@snowcone> <20090212171055.GA3652@comet> <20090212172109.778fb268@snowcone> <20090212173743.GD3652@comet> <20090212180350.0d9a9df5@snowcone> <1235037961.13198.779.camel@localhost> <20090219125124.33eaa66c@snowcone> <1235077892.13198.1923.camel@localhost> <20090222171658.278ae167@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca> <49A1E1CB.1000806@gentoo.org> <20090222234800.29d64b8d@snowcone> <49A206A7.3050604@gentoo.org> <49A39CE7.4010201@gentoo.org> <49A3AAA1.6080207@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <49A3AAA1.6080207@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 5a807c4b-9f65-4f59-9b51-d302d462e80c X-Archives-Hash: 3d017f48d19b1ddace6d9f6008fc5eaf Alistair Bush wrote: > I just don't think those numbers tell us anything and that should be > obvious from anyone who has read GLEP 55[1], we ain't really attempting > to solve a problem that exists within the tree currently (well the bash > issue does, in a way ). We are trying to solve issues that ware stopping > the "tree" moving forward. Lets evaluate GLEP 55 in the problems it is > attempting to solve. I'm afraid you missed the whole point... - what is in the proposal is a solution looking for a problem: nobody updated the glep with the required sections, nobody put up a list of bugs/rfe from bugzilla it helps to solve. Vague "leading to the future change" declaration aren't what I'd expect. - Assuming there is an actual reason to move forward (by digging bugzilla yourself or deciding to do so as academic exercise) you could think about the problem and its solutions (my the email starting this thread on dev) - Given all you need is just to have a way to get the information about EAPI before you actually parse the ebuild since the eapi defines how you parse it, you can come up with various solutions, the simplest being first extract the eapi, being it in a fixed place, and then do the parse. - Extracting such information could have different costs depending on where to place it. - I started to check if the proposal about having the fixed position as the end of the filename is really much more viable than having it at the top of the file. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo Council Member Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero