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 1Lbzlp-0006AW-OB for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:04:34 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6DD35E0408; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:04:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4754FE0408 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:04:30 +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 79A84649A3 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:04:29 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <49A41A8C.1060002@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:04:28 +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: 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> <20090224141912.0a666a17@snowcone> In-Reply-To: <20090224141912.0a666a17@snowcone> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 71b10956-d87e-4f70-bca5-a5a8a220e52e X-Archives-Hash: 3d16d31bf8c13d730fa98feefb1ec9d7 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:08:23 +0100 > Uh, your benchmarks are nonsense. Provide your nonsensical ones. > That is not how metadata checks work. Explain how they work, regen works that way... > By parsing the ebuilds you're talking doubling the number of file reads > required to get the job done, and massively increasing the number of > seeks required. Apparently it doesn't impact anything. > But that isn't even the main issue. The main issue is that even if you > retroactively pretend that all ebuilds are in a format they're not, and > ignore the breakage, and then wait for a year for package managers to > try to parse your new format, you *still* can't change name or > versioning rules. why? when portage would breanch if I put an ebuild with a wacky version AND there is a valid cache for that telling its eapi 99 ? > Again, these are all things that have been discussed at length > previously. Please either come up with a legitimate technical > objection, or admit that you've seen the light. the glep doesn't show any of those nor reference to it, as I said before, do your homework and probably more people will be happier with your proposals. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo Council Member Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero