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 1MehTy-0007zO-ID for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 03:41:34 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6BC53E0268; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 03:41:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E370E0268 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 03:41:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8007D674A5 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 03:41:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.545 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.545 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.054, 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 OND0Phd0RmiE for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 03:41:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD9456489D for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 03:41:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1MehTj-0000TP-8e for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 05:41:19 +0200 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 ; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 05:41:19 +0200 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-21-207.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 05:41:19 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Make 10.0 profiles EAPI-2 'compliant' Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 03:40:58 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <90b936c0908121058y5fd25cfcm67a19761b1130896@mail.gmail.com> <20090821224638.1f797d4b@snowmobile> <200908220110.33794.reavertm@poczta.fm> <200908220145.00956.rbu@gentoo.org> 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: e665a903-af6b-4f09-a888-aaa6ad8fc988 X-Archives-Hash: ac1700d0e5f2db2bb19198ee1ddb7b91 Robert Buchholz posted on Sat, 22 Aug 2009 01:44:51 +0200 as excerpted: > I wonder what the value of the PMS specification is if every time an > inconsistency comes up the argument is raised that it should document > portage behavior. EAPI 1, 2 and 3 have been agreed by the council and > PMS is in a stage where Portage should obey its definitions and not the > other way around. > Trying to ignore the fact this standard exists is a way to breakage. There are, as I see it, two issues here. 1) This feature can be reasonably argued to have fallen thru the cracks,=20 since it was actually implemented before PMS. Yes, the committing=20 documentation said it was for user config only, but the implementation=20 was in general, and in general, EAPI-0 was to document existing behavior,= =20 so we have a problem. It's thus one of a very limited number of=20 candidates, and it's not like there's going to be hundreds more where=20 this came from. 2) If I'm not mistaken, EAPI-0 has never been fully finalized anyway. It= =20 has gotten to preliminary approval, where bugs are supposed to be filed=20 where there's a conflict, and a resolution worked out. All other=20 approved EAPIs have been defined as differences from previous versions,=20 but due to the way EAPI-0 came about, nobody has really been sure enough=20 it's 100% defined, and final approval hasn't happened as a result. Given= =20 that this feature was there before PMS. despite what the documentation=20 actually said, it's precisely the type of bug that was intended to be=20 covered by the preliminary approval, and hammering it out as that=20 preliminary approval outlined is where we're at right now. If #2 is indeed correct, then we don't have a loophole, we have a=20 legitimate bug that's we're in the process of hashing out, and it's not=20 at all clear cut whether the bug is in portage and arguably the original=20 documentation or in PMS. That's a matter of viewpoint that will likely=20 take a council vote to solve. However, as I pointed out on the bug, either way it's not particularly=20 difficult to solve it. Should council decide to run with the existing=20 portage behavior, since it has been there for years, the old pre-PMS wait= - a-year before changes can be allowed in tree need not apply. I suggested= =20 30-90 days before it's allowed in official overlays, and 90-180 days=20 before it's allowed in-tree, altho using it only in the new profiles=20 works too. If it goes the other way, then as Zac points out, it's a simple matter to= =20 change the portage documentation once again, and since it's not in-tree=20 yet (well, at least before the new-profile announcement, and anything=20 that new and limited to them can be reverted fairly easily too), not a=20 big deal. It can then wait for EAPI-4 But regardless, it /does/ appear it'll take a council vote on this, one=20 way or the other. The matter has been requested for the next council=20 meeting. I'd hope everybody can agree to just slow down a bit until=20 then. (Zac just committed a portage documentation note mentioning it's=20 not in PMS yet, and no intervening releases have been made with the=20 questioned wording /without/ that clause, AFAIK, so that end's covered.)=20 If at that point it's postponed, that too is effectively a decision, but=20 I should hope it won't be postponed, as it's relatively simple either=20 way, and we need a resolution from council, as the authoritative body=20 designated to resolve such issues, both in general, and if I'm not=20 mistaken, in the preliminary EAPI-0 approval. --=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