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 1LcWgf-0005h3-NV for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 03:13:26 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 768F0E0319; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 03:13:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from QMTA03.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta03.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.32]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F339E0319 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 03:13:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from OMTA05.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.43]) by QMTA03.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id LE1c1b00S0vp7WLA3TDQSX; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 03:13:24 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.13] ([69.140.18.238]) by OMTA05.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id LTDN1b00S58Be2l8RTDQB1; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 03:13:24 +0000 Message-ID: <49A608CA.1040104@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:13:14 -0500 From: Kumba User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) 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] Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives References: <49A472E3.1010204@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <49A472E3.1010204@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 22b4bf67-7496-49dd-8702-60903996aef8 X-Archives-Hash: a0483ffc6870dbe91645764faa9bf3e5 Petteri R=C3=A4ty wrote: > Let's try something new. I would like to get opinions from as many > people as possible about GLEP 55 and alternatives listed here in order > to get some idea what the general developer pool thinks. Everyone is > only allowed to post a single reply to this thread in order to make it > easy to read through. The existing thread should be used for actual > discussion about the GLEP and the alternatives. This should be a useful > experiment to see if we can control ourselves :) I was talking to Alec last night in -dev (yes, I'm still alive), and I to= ssed=20 out the idea of using metadata.xml instead of mangling the ebuild filenam= e or=20 even sticking it as the first line in the ebuild (as a hashbang or someth= ing=20 gentoo-specific, for example). It's nothing fully fleshed out, and I know parsing XML is about as much f= un as=20 sticking your tongue into a cross-cut paper shredder, but I figured why n= ot toss=20 it out there? Add a tag like this to metadata.xml pv =3D Package Version (incl. revision if needed). v =3D EAPI version. Other variants: mips-sources-2.6.28.7 1 and such. This allows portage or whatever to associate the chosen/desired EAPI leve= l with=20 a given ebuild version in portage (so the above examples would match=20 mips-sources-2.6.28.7.ebuild) I think there's some other magic going on after metadata is updated in po= rtage,=20 like the whole use.local.desc auto-updating. I figure something like thi= s could=20 also be implemented, maybe even in the same way whereby a backend script = parses=20 this out and create a /usr/portage/profiles/eapi.list file that links pac= kage=20 revisions with the set eapi level. Then let the various package managers= do=20 whatever it is that they do to make use of this information. Call it random brainstorming. No idea on the pros & cons -- I haven't ev= en=20 looked at g55 just yet. --=20 Joshua Kinard Gentoo/MIPS kumba@gentoo.org "The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us. A= nd our=20 lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between= ." --Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic