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 1Shdew-0001zG-TU for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 09:26:39 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0C74FE0961; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 09:26:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F248E0833 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 09:25:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (pool-108-46-203-161.nycmny.fios.verizon.net [108.46.203.161]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ryao) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5EC061B400B for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 09:25:12 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4FE2E81B.5070107@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 05:23:39 -0400 From: Richard Yao User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.5) Gecko/20120613 Thunderbird/10.0.5 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: My wishlist for EAPI 5 References: <4FE231BA.6020404@gentoo.org> <20120620213518.4baf8150@googlemail.com> <4FE23799.5080003@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: d4723b07-ae73-41da-873e-260f0bd4e41f X-Archives-Hash: bf45c63258335e9a0412ea3eeaee7aa3 On 06/21/2012 04:29 AM, Duncan wrote: > Richard Yao posted on Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:50:33 -0400 as excerpted: > >> On 06/20/2012 04:35 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400 Richard Yao wrote: >>>> POSIX Shell compliance >>> So far as I know, every PM relies heavily upon bash anyway (and can't >>> easily be made not to), so even if developers would accept having to >>> rewrite all their eclasses, it still wouldn't remove the dep. >>> >> Lets address POSIX compliance in the ebuilds first. Then we can deal >> with the package managers. > Additionally, this is extremely unlikely because a number of developers > insist on bash, to the extent that it would likely split gentoo in half > if this were to be forced. It wouldn't pass council. It's unlikely to > even /get/ to council. > > Openrc could move to POSIX shell because its primary dev at the time > wanted it that way and it's only a single package. However, even then, > doing it was controversial enough that said developer ended up leaving > gentoo in-part over that, tho he did continue to develop openrc as a > gentoo hosted project for quite some years. Now you're talking trying to > do it for /every/ (well, almost every) package, thus touching every > single gentoo dev. It's just not going to happen in even the medium term > (say for argument APIs 5-7ish), let alone be something practical enough > to implement, soon enough (even if everyone agreed on the general idea, > they don't), to be anything like conceivable for EAPI5. > > So just let that one be. It's simply not worth tilting at that windmill. > > (Arguably, multi-arch, while practical and actually working at least with > portage in an overlay, fails that last bit as well. If it was pushed, > perhaps for EAPI6 or 7, but it's just not practical to consider it for > EAPI5... unless you want to wait 3-5 years for EAPI5!) > It is just a wish list. Anyway, people need to decide on what they want from a new EAPI before one is made. Once they decide, it should be possible to work out the details.