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 ) 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 ; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 06:46:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id f25so2899694rvb.46 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:46:13 -0800 (PST) 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 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: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives From: Alec Warner 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 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- > - ignored by current Portage > b) ..ebuild > - current Portage does not work with this > c) .. > - 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) > 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 > >