From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1J5HPa-0001dU-A6 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:09:50 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with SMTP id lBK98xgt031916; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:08:59 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with ESMTP id lBK970wB029592 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:07:00 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3648E65BAA for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:07:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.004 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.004 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.595, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id THvEct8Xs7v8 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:06:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97651659C2 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:06:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J5HMC-0007BB-Uj for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:06:20 +0000 Received: from ip68-231-12-179.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.12.179]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:06:20 +0000 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-12-179.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:06:20 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:05:21 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <200712172320.01988.peper@gentoo.org> <20071218195937.GD4423@ferdyx.org> <47692A3B.2010406@gentoo.org> <200712191544.17923.peper@gentoo.org> <47693601.4080103@gentoo.org> <20071219154000.GA4601@ferdyx.org> <20071219110354.51f8275c@altair.jimramsay.com> <20071219165019.GB4601@ferdyx.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-12-179.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.132 (Waxed in Black) Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: 0a06703b-57a4-4f95-97d6-00fb47894d59 X-Archives-Hash: af6e5fcdb92cfeecac5eb3d0d26e5b7d "Fernando J. Pereda" posted 20071219165019.GB4601@ferdyx.org, excerpted below, on Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:50:19 +0100: > On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:03:54AM -0500, Jim Ramsay wrote: >> >> The sense I've gotten from this discussion so far is that if you want >> features from two EAPIs you know *can* be combined without collisions, >> you should define a third EAPI that is a superset of the other 2. > > *nod* But that is different from arbitrary mixing them, which is what > originated this subthread. Quoting CiaranM from a different subthread, defining EAPI: > A cat/pkg-ver has exactly one EAPI. That EAPI belongs to the > cat/pkg-ver as a whole, and is static across that cat/pkg-ver. Now, we already had someone mention using two together, prefix (which seems to have been defined as an EAPI for the purposes of this discussion, I don't deal with it so haven't the foggiest about it, personally) and EAPI-1. If that portion of Ciaran's definition quoted above stands, that usage would be defined as illegal, thus anything using it "broken". The work-around as Jim mentions above would be defining a third EAPI combining as a superset the other two. One could then create ebuilds using that third EAPI. Of course, until at least one of the available package managers supports that third EAPI, ebuilds created to use it wouldn't be of much use, and until portage, being the official Gentoo PM, supported it, said ebuilds could not be placed in the Gentoo-x86 tree. The question, then, is whether anyone, particularly those working with PMs other than paludis (Ciaran being the lead on it so presumably his EAPI definition works for it), disagrees with that portion of Ciaran's EAPI definition. I've seen no such direct disagreement so far, with the presumed exception of the person mentioning already combining two (without creating a third out of them) in prefix, of course. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list