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 E533E1381F3 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 16:56:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E4813E096D; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 16:56:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE564E094C for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 16:56:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ie0-x22b.google.com (mail-ie0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: floppym) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1FCD733DC38 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 16:56:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f171.google.com with SMTP id qd12so3846391ieb.16 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 09:56:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=L96XwfezlnQMMvjWtAm0ARO5RCj2qCBp2Te2CVfydeM=; b=cp7x7Q3kIicTcGwqD7iR/jWTHYPII6WnkoVxb5MCEvOiLELgxzOJewf8qqy7ylHbZx /Vhd/uDN69oRsSrCCpQIxB8tCOgT6iNA4iFIXJJLKTGfzHwcgCNXg8FSpZ2GnF8KBOar ZvhzdXqOLw6amdOim94W4adpiKrxm9c8wizwjlMA+0eMJ2enjL5hdu7x87/RWe3OxdKS CrKklTtDAKeUUrjiBmHLp3ifAY946wUzsjtckMbj289Ojkw5+sBBYijrK+X12h/YrXeP tv9eRlg/oLN2OTcU9ov/NSCMJRgPHZAxJ0bqAKhXYXGZbCfghA95mx5kVyi2U+sFlO+5 nvSw== 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 10.50.225.66 with SMTP id ri2mr1424515igc.55.1371315360480; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 09:56:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.18.227 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 09:56:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130615174230.33a7592c@googlemail.com> References: <51BC9105.5070604@gentoo.org> <20924.37728.751450.362549@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20130615182413.2e1b2f8a@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20130615174230.33a7592c@googlemail.com> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 12:56:00 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Calling die in a subshell From: Mike Gilbert To: Gentoo Dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 738f2c89-6895-49a2-b7e9-cfcdec211ef5 X-Archives-Hash: ac0bc6ab731a4bc662871e9668f18abf On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:24:13 +0200 > Tom Wijsman wrote: >> What does it take to change future specifications to guarantee this? > > You can have it from EAPI 6 onwards. > >> What's holding this from becoming guaranteed? Why not fix the specs? > > The specs accurately reflect Portage behaviour at the time the specs > were approved. The point of a stable EAPI is that once approved it > doesn't change. > >From the council log, the main objection I saw was that we didn't want to change the behavior of existing ebuilds. In this particular case, we know that Portage has been properly handling die in a subshell since at least EAPI 4 was approved. I don't use Paludis, but we may have a similar situation there. If we find that all known implementations of PMS/EAPI 4 have implemented a certain behavior, making a change to that version of PMS to properly document the behavior seems reasonable.