From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1M5Ve7-0002jF-Cc for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 17 May 2009 01:58:35 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2AF2FE064F; Sun, 17 May 2009 01:58:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF40CE064F for ; Sun, 17 May 2009 01:58:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8442565543 for ; Sun, 17 May 2009 01:58:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.909 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.909 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.690, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] 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 Olg8EreFFBXC for ; Sun, 17 May 2009 01:58:25 +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 6A7EF6504D for ; Sun, 17 May 2009 01:58:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1M5Vdq-0000em-Qd for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sun, 17 May 2009 01:58:18 +0000 Received: from ip68-231-21-207.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.21.207]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 17 May 2009 01:58:18 +0000 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-21-207.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 17 May 2009 01:58:18 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: The fallacies of GLEP55 Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 01:58:09 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20090514225337.34df7dac@snowcone> <20090515194329.GA16382@linux1> <20090515204905.54aa6a5c@snowmobile> <20090516092710.GA3221@eric.schwarzvogel.de> <20090516151216.15efc792@snowmobile> <20090516153224.GA4964@eric.schwarzvogel.de> <20090516163421.32935cbc@snowmobile> <20090516154332.GA6646@eric.schwarzvogel.de> <20090516164903.261df865@snowmobile> <1242491708.7309.3.camel@peripatetic.hades> <20090516163908.GB11144@dodo.hsd1.nj.comcast.net> <1242492270.7309.6.camel@peripatetic.hades> <20090516174730.1d7dd5b7@snowmobile> <1242492844.7309.9.camel@peripatetic.hades> <20090516175931.7756060d@snowmobile> <1242493786.7309.17.camel@peripatetic.hades> <20090516185508.0fd02f0e@snowmobile> <4A0F4EBC.5020706@gmail.com> <20090517015039.2fa0468a@snowmobile> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-21-207.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.133 (House of Butterflies) Sender: news Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: f68dae48-f525-4f35-8dad-99cc042a1f34 X-Archives-Hash: ae06cb4d3360556bfaff90b5749c085d Ciaran McCreesh posted 20090517015039.2fa0468a@snowmobile, excerpted below, on Sun, 17 May 2009 01:50:39 +0100: > On Sun, 17 May 2009 00:35:45 +0000 (UTC) Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> > wrote: >> As for ciaranm's argument that you're restricting changes to the >> version string, say allowing -rc where _rc is now required, one-time >> restriction of a year or two, yes. However, if the spec is crafted >> such that the EAPI must be checked FIRST >=20 > ...then the package manager has to inspect the metadata for every > version of a package before it can do anything, rather than just > starting at the best version and working downwards until it finds > something usable, which is a pretty hefty price to pay. I'd argue that uncached, certainly, it's a heavy price to pay, tho that's= =20 so slow as to be hardly workable anyway. Cached, however, while it's certainly a bit of an increase over the=20 current price, I don't believe it inordinately so. Given that for EAPIs=20 the PM doesn't understand it bales anyway, ignoring them, and that EAPI=20 is defined as FIRST to be determined, it's an early-out in the can't-deal= - with-it case, and scaled against dependency calculation, grabbing the=20 EAPI and establishing a proper ordering shouldn't be /that/ much of a=20 cost increase, particularly when the alternative is establishing an=20 order, then finding we can't deal with the EAPI of the top of the list=20 anyway, so we have to reject it. It's simply putting EAPI rejection=20 earlier in the sequence, dealing with that before establishing order and=20 immediately rejecting what we can't handle, rather than establishing=20 order first, then checking EAPI and possibly rejecting some versions. So I believe the cost to be quite reasonably managed, after all. =20 Benchmarks would of course be needed to demonstrate that, but I believe=20 it worth pursuing. --=20 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