From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MBW4a-00023l-4f for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:38:44 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C0299E01F1; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 15:38:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vms173003pub.verizon.net (vms173003pub.verizon.net [206.46.173.3]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC222E01F1 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 15:38:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gw.thefreemanclan.net ([71.242.220.77]) by vms173003.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPA id <0KKM00JN5BG4FJ33@vms173003.mailsrvcs.net> for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 02 Jun 2009 10:38:33 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw.thefreemanclan.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4A6A1759CDE for ; Tue, 02 Jun 2009 11:38:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-id: <4A254773.6080908@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 11:38:27 -0400 From: Richard Freeman User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090321) 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] Re: How not to discuss References: <20090527210642.6b7b0f21@snowcone> <20090530145613.37514ceb@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca> <4A21E40A.60500@gentoo.org> <200905311126.00274.bangert@gentoo.org> <1565621.WYyjxmS50y@news.friendly-coders.info> In-reply-to: <1565621.WYyjxmS50y@news.friendly-coders.info> Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 2cfbde1e-7b45-4f5d-8207-8682c9b314cb X-Archives-Hash: 3afe93ba56ee4841431c26039464d502 Steven J Long wrote: > Getting into a nonsensical debate about PN being metadata seems to be > the level of the argument, so forgive me for not being very impressed. > (It's externally derived and in fact the whole point of the product; > unless someone is proposing losing PN and PV from filename, can we > *please* dismiss that argument as the irrelevance which it is?) > Without actually intending to open a new debate on that issue , I'm actually a fan of NOT obtaining PN and PV from the filename. I've seen an approach like this used in various systems and I happen to like it: 1. First, I don't propose ebuild names should change at all. By all means we should continue to leave PN and PV in the filename since the current naming convention makes sense. 2. However, I do propose that the package manager should ignore PN/PV in the filename entirely. 3. Instead, the package manager will obtain PN and PV from inside the ebuild (as ordinary shell variables). I'd even break up PV into an upstream revision and an ebuild revision. Once you make these changes I see these benefits: a. You get rid of all kinds of parsing issues - like restrictions on dashes in the various components. b. You can more flexibly allow for all kinds of crazy upstream versioning systems, since it isn't mashed together with the ebuild revision. c. If somebody comes up with a more clever way to name files we can use it. d. We can bend the rules on PN/PV/etc in the filename since it is just a user-visible representation of PN/PV and not the source of these values. On the other hand, a bump will require more than a cp command. There are also increased demands on caching (similar to all the glep55 ebuild-in-file issues). In any case, this isn't a serious proposal that needs a 47-reply debate. Just an idea...