Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

[Robert Bridge <robert@robbieab.com>]

Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On Thursday 14 May 2009 20:39:07 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 May 2009 20:06:51 +0200
>>
>> Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> Let EAPI be defined as (the part behind the = of) the first line of
>>> the ebuild starting with EAPI=
>> Uh, so horribly utterly and obviously wrong.
>>
>>     inherit foo
>>     EAPI=4
>>
>> where foo is both a global and a non-global eclass that sets metadata.
>
> Interesting, but quite subtly wrong. I'm surprised that you try to slip such 
> an obvious logical mistake in in an attempt to save your arguments.

Patrick, in the interest of making this comprehensible to the average 
schmuck like me, which you seem to be trying to do, could you actually 
explain WHY this is wrong? Otherwise it looks like you are simply trying 
the arrogant "I am right because I say so" line.

>> If you're looking for a formally correct alternative that works in the
>> way you suggest, I already provided one, and you already read about it
>> -- and it still doesn't solve the problems that 55 does.
>
> And glep55 doesn't solve the problem either. It's neither formal nor correct, 
> plus in this case ... what on earth are you trying to communicate?

Again, see my previous comment.

>>> We can encode all the relevant info in "the first line of the ebuild
>>> starting with EAPI="
>> No we can't. That's *obviously* completely wrong.
>>
> It's obviously quite specifically not. Can you show any case where that fails 
> or where adding this restriction removes relevant functionality?

Both of you need to explain your opinions here.


Just my thoughts,
R.