From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
(envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-34568-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1LcDX7-0006uH-6d
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 06:46:17 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0B255E01B4;
Wed, 25 Feb 2009 06:46:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com (rv-out-0708.google.com [209.85.198.241])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF8BEE01B4
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 06:46:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id f25so2899694rvb.46
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:46:13 -0800 (PST)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: antarus@scriptkitty.com
Received: by 10.142.237.19 with SMTP id k19mr2962424wfh.296.1235544373286;
Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:46:13 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <49A472E3.1010204@gentoo.org>
References: <49A472E3.1010204@gentoo.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:46:13 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 188aad17ab057ea4
Message-ID: <b41005390902242246s63a4df6fse6e3dd4e619e1237@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives
From: Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Archives-Salt: 70281793-5b6d-4a6f-9454-3afc9bb19a68
X-Archives-Hash: 505966527792c3345484dca9a247f368
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Petteri R=C3=A4ty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org=
> wrote:
> Let's try something new. I would like to get opinions from as many
> people as possible about GLEP 55 and alternatives listed here in order
> to get some idea what the general developer pool thinks. Everyone is
> only allowed to post a single reply to this thread in order to make it
> easy to read through. The existing thread should be used for actual
> discussion about the GLEP and the alternatives. This should be a useful
> experiment to see if we can control ourselves :)
>
> My notes so far:
>
> 1) Status quo
> - does not allow changing inherit
> - bash version in global scope
> - global scope in general is quite locked down
>
> 2) EAPI in file extension
> - Allows changing global scope and the internal format of the ebuild
> a) .ebuild-<eapi>
> - ignored by current Portage
> b) .<eapi>.ebuild
> - current Portage does not work with this
> c) .<eapi>.<new extension>
> - ignored by current Portage
>
> 3) EAPI in locked down place in the ebuild
> - Allows changing global scope
> - EAPI can't be changed in an existing ebuild so the PM can trust
> the value in the cache
> - Does not allow changing versioning rules unless version becomes a
> normal metadata variable
> * Needs more accesses to cache as now you don't have to load older
> versions if the latest is not masked
> a) <new extension>
> b) new subdirectory like ebuilds/
> - we could drop extension all together so don't have to argue about
> it any more
> - more directory reads to get the list of ebuilds in a repository
> c) .ebuild in current directory
> - needs one year wait
I'm adding stuff to this; but its in my copy of glep-55.txt which I
will probably send out later. I basically see this as a mix of
options and requirements and thats how I would expect the council to
make their decision.
For instance; if we don't care about backwards compatibility with
older managers than we can enable a number of other solutions that
would otherwise be excluded. If we want to be able to swap versions
of bash as a requirement; that automatically excludes specific
solutions that don't handle that case. So in my rewrite of glep55 I'm
attempting to make a list similar to yours and try to convey what
requirements are togglable for each thing. In the end I expect the
council to:
- Choose requirements that make the most sense for Gentoo.
- Look at the solutions that are left that meet said requirements and pick=
one.
dev.gentoo.org/~antarus/projects/gleps/glep-0055.html for the updated GLEP.
-A
>
> Regards,
> Petteri
>
>