From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5332138262 for ; Wed, 18 May 2016 00:44:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6E79921C074; Wed, 18 May 2016 00:44:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yw0-f175.google.com (mail-yw0-f175.google.com [209.85.161.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AE9921C065 for ; Wed, 18 May 2016 00:44:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw0-f175.google.com with SMTP id g133so33205978ywb.2 for ; Tue, 17 May 2016 17:44:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=Iiuvg1fko8DgVHFfZm1AC31zoyScU6ujWfhJHtOwojA=; b=r0NroBQG0df1JOKHYzKCgJltoKZ31/c10gMa5XZniIagrl/Rjs99SU3nBhhy4bkhoO rZxYLE/8y2in1OQ/1834qCF12+dkF9ZCBJnsLnv+5Nw0pHC3pmt2jH57isw2dFBqD7c7 yj1j0ab+2Dze3gnToxItHBCxoqHYW7xaGzZcZ3CUa+El9aOwLCbd5hR0oybn065uZ64n zFrej3AhZfKJT6azR25G65W140dIK0GfJYzT5Mv7gZFefiZxb72aNFwenyL80hK3+sZz VCWVuuAgsa1K/e7LUHNCZi2IshO6hQ2hllu6Dg13rG7GVRKK5qEN9sMPjCZ3Uiz61qYJ uQwg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to; bh=Iiuvg1fko8DgVHFfZm1AC31zoyScU6ujWfhJHtOwojA=; b=Rc3eqw5449lVLz4r9wxU885H1F1WFGTolnLQZ9ZCtiiuev9w5UJx30ln4LJeQqcxY7 M+GfWdoX9xFN51bfl+rj0iTK081elzu7jSLQBPrtTRqgFQ0tqLQjYCX44aJfrSm+5wAG mO8A2y6KteaemYEvvPdPrqL5jFWw8O19qPlhxvZsFFuLFC/VLKGS4ORVofLFTH/P9Tut WJ4MoHn6qR+RNEltqNdqcQ/2QLUtkVM1zfcTirqJmZMXPudhrS9oUcNoR1Kh03urRPS1 ug59f01oGz67/tLVPVNUTAmCM1klGAM63G25A0CObdUIyKJ8oVNd89Vq23Ykhn7bjLbd LqhQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FV8PNHTTURJv1N52EFQM0qN+5fOJWT4o7v68Zr60kqfSPIPcmXj8iA3HRTS/enTYFqiwCQOOM2xPoxAtg== 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 X-Received: by 10.37.53.86 with SMTP id c83mr2469995yba.73.1463532266469; Tue, 17 May 2016 17:44:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.13.241.199 with HTTP; Tue, 17 May 2016 17:44:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <573BB8C7.9020400@iee.org> References: <20160516183840.4b241463@gentp.lnet> <20160517173418.168d2cba@gentp.lnet> <573BB8C7.9020400@iee.org> Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:44:26 +1200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for changes for the next EAPI version From: Kent Fredric To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: dcfac7f0-8a9f-40e3-98fd-04bd15e1e9a9 X-Archives-Hash: ff35cc53945f47088691a1f3f2b53377 On 18 May 2016 at 12:35, M. J. Everitt wrote: > Yes, whilst that's a special case, it would be desirable to collaborate > with another maintainer/team/project to devise a test schedule that was > independent from the target language, if possible. But there will always > be exceptions and issues and such with these things .. :/ In some of these cases, the things I'd be testing have to rely on Perl Modules *because* it has to track how those specific modules respond to the code in question. For instance, to check we're doing our version normalisation correctly, we have to use the upstream reference version of Perl's version handling code directly. *NOT* doing this results in significant problems, both in our failure to perfectly map upstreams implementation in a different language, and in our ability to keep our implementation in consistency with upstream changes. And we have already suffered this problem specifically in euscan, where the euscan project implemented the version interpretation logic manually, and did so hilariously wrong, and as a result, thinks newer versions are older versions a lot of the time, and vice versa. I've attempted my own implementation of upstreams logic *better* than I think euscan does it, but I'm trapped in the reality where I have *no* objective way of knowing if it in fact, represents upstreams logic correctly. The simplest thing to say here is "implementing it in a non-target language is often enough the wrong choice". Similarly, I've made the mistake of trying to understand and interpret ebuilds statically without using bash .... that's a road to nowhere. Even using bash is a bit tortured because I can't understand how an ebuild works without reimplementing all the EAPI parts in bash or relying on some portage version of the same ( which is extremely not easy to use outside of the portage tools ). -- Kent KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL