public inbox for gentoo-pms@lists.gentoo.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5 (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making user patches globally available)
       [not found]                                           ` <20120427215824.3382e682@pomiocik.lan>
@ 2012-04-27 20:12                                             ` Ciaran McCreesh
  2012-04-27 22:01                                               ` [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5 Ulrich Mueller
                                                                 ` (7 more replies)
  0 siblings, 8 replies; 42+ messages in thread
From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-04-27 20:12 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms; +Cc: gentoo-dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 622 bytes --]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 21:58:24 +0200
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Of course, if we take the 'quick EAPI 5 route', it won't include
> anything useful. In the meantime, do we have a complete list of
> candidates for EAPI 5?

Let's continue this on the PMS list.

* user patches

* EAPI parsing

* the things that were left out of 4:

    + slot operator deps

    + profile IUSE

* No -j1 for src_test

* Remove deprecated stuff

* Zero or one REQUIRED_USE operator

These might be cheap now?

* New bash version

* Get a versionator replacement into the PM

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5
  2012-04-27 20:12                                             ` [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5 (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making user patches globally available) Ciaran McCreesh
@ 2012-04-27 22:01                                               ` Ulrich Mueller
  2012-04-28  9:36                                                 ` Ciaran McCreesh
  2012-04-29 16:20                                                 ` Ralph Sennhauser
  2012-04-27 23:45                                               ` [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5 (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making user patches globally available) Zac Medico
                                                                 ` (6 subsequent siblings)
  7 siblings, 2 replies; 42+ messages in thread
From: Ulrich Mueller @ 2012-04-27 22:01 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms

>>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 21:58:24 +0200
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Of course, if we take the 'quick EAPI 5 route', it won't include
>> anything useful. In the meantime, do we have a complete list of
>> candidates for EAPI 5?

> Let's continue this on the PMS list.

> * user patches

> * EAPI parsing

> * the things that were left out of 4:

>     + slot operator deps

>     + profile IUSE

> * No -j1 for src_test

> * Remove deprecated stuff

Hm, remove IMAGE. Anything else?

> * Zero or one REQUIRED_USE operator

No objections from me to all of the above.

> These might be cheap now?

> * New bash version

Too early, IMHO. Let's implement EAPI parsing first, then wait for
some reasonable time (which presumably means EAPI 6).

> * Get a versionator replacement into the PM

Given the long time it's been in limbo I doubt that this will be a
quick feature. (But I'll be glad if you convince me of the opposite.)

Other cheap stuff:

* Mandate GNU find (bug 384157)
* Add an EBUILD_PHASE_FUNC variable (bug 390765)
* usex: new "use" type helper (bug 382963)
* econf: append --disable-silent-rules (bug 379497)

Ulrich



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5 (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making user patches globally available)
  2012-04-27 20:12                                             ` [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5 (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making user patches globally available) Ciaran McCreesh
  2012-04-27 22:01                                               ` [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5 Ulrich Mueller
@ 2012-04-27 23:45                                               ` Zac Medico
  2012-04-28  8:52                                               ` [gentoo-pms] " Michał Górny
                                                                 ` (5 subsequent siblings)
  7 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread
From: Zac Medico @ 2012-04-27 23:45 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms

On 04/27/2012 01:12 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 21:58:24 +0200
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Of course, if we take the 'quick EAPI 5 route', it won't include
>> anything useful. In the meantime, do we have a complete list of
>> candidates for EAPI 5?
> 
> Let's continue this on the PMS list.
> 
> * user patches
> 
> * EAPI parsing
> 
> * the things that were left out of 4:
> 
>     + slot operator deps
> 
>     + profile IUSE
> 
> * No -j1 for src_test
> 
> * Remove deprecated stuff
> 
> * Zero or one REQUIRED_USE operator
> 
> These might be cheap now?
> 
> * New bash version
> 
> * Get a versionator replacement into the PM
> 

 * has_version and best_version argument for cross compiling $ROOT
   See https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401239

-- 
Thanks,
Zac



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* [gentoo-pms] Re: EAPI 5 (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making user patches globally available)
  2012-04-27 20:12                                             ` [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5 (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making user patches globally available) Ciaran McCreesh
  2012-04-27 22:01                                               ` [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5 Ulrich Mueller
  2012-04-27 23:45                                               ` [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5 (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making user patches globally available) Zac Medico
@ 2012-04-28  8:52                                               ` Michał Górny
  2012-04-28  9:34                                                 ` Ciaran McCreesh
       [not found]                                               ` <1335602418.25644.2.camel@belkin4>
                                                                 ` (4 subsequent siblings)
  7 siblings, 1 reply; 42+ messages in thread
From: Michał Górny @ 2012-04-28  8:52 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-dev; +Cc: ciaran.mccreesh, gentoo-pms

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 312 bytes --]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 21:12:27 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:

> * Get a versionator replacement into the PM

Why are we trying to make PM a brick instead of keeping stuff modular?
What does the eclass lack which could be provided by PM?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* [gentoo-pms] Re: EAPI 5 (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making user patches globally available)
  2012-04-28  8:52                                               ` [gentoo-pms] " Michał Górny
@ 2012-04-28  9:34                                                 ` Ciaran McCreesh
  2012-04-28 10:24                                                   ` [gentoo-pms] Re: EAPI 5 Ulrich Mueller
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 42+ messages in thread
From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-04-28  9:34 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: Michał Górny; +Cc: gentoo-dev, gentoo-pms

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 576 bytes --]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 10:52:07 +0200
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 21:12:27 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > * Get a versionator replacement into the PM
> 
> Why are we trying to make PM a brick instead of keeping stuff modular?
> What does the eclass lack which could be provided by PM?

Because trying to parse version formats correctly in bash is a huge
pain, and versionator doesn't get it right (never mind that the rules
were different when versionator was written).

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5
  2012-04-27 22:01                                               ` [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5 Ulrich Mueller
@ 2012-04-28  9:36                                                 ` Ciaran McCreesh
  2012-04-28 10:11                                                   ` Ulrich Mueller
  2012-04-29 16:20                                                 ` Ralph Sennhauser
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 42+ messages in thread
From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-04-28  9:36 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 387 bytes --]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 00:01:54 +0200
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > * Get a versionator replacement into the PM
> 
> Given the long time it's been in limbo I doubt that this will be a
> quick feature. (But I'll be glad if you convince me of the opposite.)

I thought we just didn't have that because we couldn't add new global
scope functions.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* [gentoo-pms] Re: EAPI 5
       [not found]                                               ` <1335602418.25644.2.camel@belkin4>
@ 2012-04-28 10:03                                                 ` Ulrich Mueller
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread
From: Ulrich Mueller @ 2012-04-28 10:03 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms

>>>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, Pacho Ramos wrote:

> Could:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=408693

> be handled also?

I'm with vapier here: This belongs in toolchain-funcs.eclass but not
in PMS.

Ulrich



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5
  2012-04-28  9:36                                                 ` Ciaran McCreesh
@ 2012-04-28 10:11                                                   ` Ulrich Mueller
  2012-04-28 10:14                                                     ` Ciaran McCreesh
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 42+ messages in thread
From: Ulrich Mueller @ 2012-04-28 10:11 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms

>>>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

>> > * Get a versionator replacement into the PM
>> 
>> Given the long time it's been in limbo I doubt that this will be a
>> quick feature. (But I'll be glad if you convince me of the opposite.)

> I thought we just didn't have that because we couldn't add new global
> scope functions.

But can we already for EAPI 5? Wouldn't the following:

   EAPI=5
   MY_PV=$(new_pm_version_mangler_function ${PV})

still fail for old package managers that don't implement EAPI parsing?

Ulrich



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5
  2012-04-28 10:11                                                   ` Ulrich Mueller
@ 2012-04-28 10:14                                                     ` Ciaran McCreesh
  2012-04-28 10:26                                                       ` Ulrich Mueller
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 42+ messages in thread
From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-04-28 10:14 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 741 bytes --]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 12:11:38 +0200
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >> > * Get a versionator replacement into the PM
> >> 
> >> Given the long time it's been in limbo I doubt that this will be a
> >> quick feature. (But I'll be glad if you convince me of the
> >> opposite.)
> 
> > I thought we just didn't have that because we couldn't add new
> > global scope functions.
> 
> But can we already for EAPI 5? Wouldn't the following:
> 
>    EAPI=5
>    MY_PV=$(new_pm_version_mangler_function ${PV})
> 
> still fail for old package managers that don't implement EAPI parsing?

Didn't the Council effectively vote to ignore that problem?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* [gentoo-pms] Re: EAPI 5
  2012-04-28  9:34                                                 ` Ciaran McCreesh
@ 2012-04-28 10:24                                                   ` Ulrich Mueller
  2012-04-28 14:13                                                     ` Michał Górny
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 42+ messages in thread
From: Ulrich Mueller @ 2012-04-28 10:24 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms; +Cc: Michał Górny

>>>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 10:52:07 +0200
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> > * Get a versionator replacement into the PM
>> 
>> Why are we trying to make PM a brick instead of keeping stuff
>> modular? What does the eclass lack which could be provided by PM?

> Because trying to parse version formats correctly in bash is a huge
> pain, and versionator doesn't get it right (never mind that the
> rules were different when versionator was written).

Right. Also the code for version handling is already implemented in
package managers. So it appears natural to make it available to the
ebuild environment, instead of (imperfectly) duplicating it in an
eclass.

Ulrich



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5
  2012-04-28 10:14                                                     ` Ciaran McCreesh
@ 2012-04-28 10:26                                                       ` Ulrich Mueller
  2012-04-29  3:13                                                         ` Brian Harring
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 42+ messages in thread
From: Ulrich Mueller @ 2012-04-28 10:26 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms

>>>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 12:11:38 +0200
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> >>>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> >> > * Get a versionator replacement into the PM
>> >> 
>> >> Given the long time it's been in limbo I doubt that this will be a
>> >> quick feature. (But I'll be glad if you convince me of the
>> >> opposite.)
>> 
>> > I thought we just didn't have that because we couldn't add new
>> > global scope functions.
>> 
>> But can we already for EAPI 5? Wouldn't the following:
>> 
>> EAPI=5
>> MY_PV=$(new_pm_version_mangler_function ${PV})
>> 
>> still fail for old package managers that don't implement EAPI parsing?

> Didn't the Council effectively vote to ignore that problem?

Yes, but after some reasonable transition period.

Ulrich



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] Re: EAPI 5
  2012-04-28 10:24                                                   ` [gentoo-pms] Re: EAPI 5 Ulrich Mueller
@ 2012-04-28 14:13                                                     ` Michał Górny
  2012-04-28 15:19                                                       ` Ciaran McCreesh
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 42+ messages in thread
From: Michał Górny @ 2012-04-28 14:13 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms; +Cc: ulm

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1068 bytes --]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 12:24:18 +0200
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:

> >>>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 10:52:07 +0200
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> > * Get a versionator replacement into the PM
> >> 
> >> Why are we trying to make PM a brick instead of keeping stuff
> >> modular? What does the eclass lack which could be provided by PM?
> 
> > Because trying to parse version formats correctly in bash is a huge
> > pain, and versionator doesn't get it right (never mind that the
> > rules were different when versionator was written).
> 
> Right. Also the code for version handling is already implemented in
> package managers. So it appears natural to make it available to the
> ebuild environment, instead of (imperfectly) duplicating it in an
> eclass.

True. But going this way, I'd say we should also move get_libdir into
PM to make it consistent with econf. I'm not sure whether it will work
fine with multilib then, however.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] Re: EAPI 5
  2012-04-28 14:13                                                     ` Michał Górny
@ 2012-04-28 15:19                                                       ` Ciaran McCreesh
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread
From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-04-28 15:19 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 598 bytes --]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:13:45 +0200
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> True. But going this way, I'd say we should also move get_libdir into
> PM to make it consistent with econf. I'm not sure whether it will work
> fine with multilib then, however.

The current get_libdir stuff is there because of the original failed
attempt to do multilib, which involved a whole load of randomly
hacked together and unspecified coupling between the PM and various
eclasses. Unfortunately, it was implemented "live", and simply doing
away with it will break things...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5 (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making user patches globally available)
  2012-04-27 20:12                                             ` [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5 (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making user patches globally available) Ciaran McCreesh
                                                                 ` (3 preceding siblings ...)
       [not found]                                               ` <1335602418.25644.2.camel@belkin4>
@ 2012-04-28 17:11                                               ` Tiziano Müller
  2012-04-28 17:14                                                 ` Ciaran McCreesh
  2012-04-30 22:14                                               ` [gentoo-pms] Re: EAPI 5 Andreas K. Huettel
                                                                 ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  7 siblings, 1 reply; 42+ messages in thread
From: Tiziano Müller @ 2012-04-28 17:11 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 913 bytes --]


Could we also get an interface to disk- and memory-space requirements?

Something like:
  
  EREQUIRE_DISK="2G"
  EREQUIRE_MEMORY="1G"

which gets checked in pre_pkg_setup?

Am Freitag, den 27.04.2012, 21:12 +0100 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 21:58:24 +0200
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Of course, if we take the 'quick EAPI 5 route', it won't include
> > anything useful. In the meantime, do we have a complete list of
> > candidates for EAPI 5?
> 
> Let's continue this on the PMS list.
> 
> * user patches
> 
> * EAPI parsing
> 
> * the things that were left out of 4:
> 
>     + slot operator deps
> 
>     + profile IUSE
> 
> * No -j1 for src_test
> 
> * Remove deprecated stuff
> 
> * Zero or one REQUIRED_USE operator
> 
> These might be cheap now?
> 
> * New bash version
> 
> * Get a versionator replacement into the PM
> 


[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3551 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5 (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making user patches globally available)
  2012-04-28 17:11                                               ` [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5 (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making user patches globally available) Tiziano Müller
@ 2012-04-28 17:14                                                 ` Ciaran McCreesh
  2012-04-29  3:24                                                   ` Brian Harring
  2012-04-30  9:03                                                   ` Tiziano Müller
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 42+ messages in thread
From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-04-28 17:14 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 381 bytes --]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 19:11:03 +0200
Tiziano Müller <dev-zero@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Could we also get an interface to disk- and memory-space requirements?
> 
> Something like:
>   
>   EREQUIRE_DISK="2G"
>   EREQUIRE_MEMORY="1G"
> 
> which gets checked in pre_pkg_setup?

Is there anything the package mangler can do better than check-reqs
here?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5
  2012-04-28 10:26                                                       ` Ulrich Mueller
@ 2012-04-29  3:13                                                         ` Brian Harring
  2012-04-29  6:47                                                           ` Michał Górny
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 42+ messages in thread
From: Brian Harring @ 2012-04-29  3:13 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms

On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 12:26:41PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 12:11:38 +0200
> > Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> >>>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >> >> > * Get a versionator replacement into the PM
> >> >> 
> >> >> Given the long time it's been in limbo I doubt that this will be a
> >> >> quick feature. (But I'll be glad if you convince me of the
> >> >> opposite.)
> >> 
> >> > I thought we just didn't have that because we couldn't add new
> >> > global scope functions.
> >> 
> >> But can we already for EAPI 5? Wouldn't the following:
> >> 
> >> EAPI=5
> >> MY_PV=$(new_pm_version_mangler_function ${PV})
> >> 
> >> still fail for old package managers that don't implement EAPI parsing?
> 
> > Didn't the Council effectively vote to ignore that problem?
> 
> Yes, but after some reasonable transition period.

<insert my ongoing "Gee, lovely fucking approach to designing a 
compatibility mechanism"/>

For EAPI5, all global scope functionality/bash version/take your pick 
has to be taken off the table, and held back till EAPI6- w/ the 
timeline for EAPI6 being "a reasonable transition period" after EAPI5 
has been stabled in portage.

~brian



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5 (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making user patches globally available)
  2012-04-28 17:14                                                 ` Ciaran McCreesh
@ 2012-04-29  3:24                                                   ` Brian Harring
  2012-04-29 14:20                                                     ` Tiziano Müller
  2012-04-30  9:03                                                   ` Tiziano Müller
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 42+ messages in thread
From: Brian Harring @ 2012-04-29  3:24 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms

On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 06:14:30PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 19:11:03 +0200
> Tiziano M??ller <dev-zero@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Could we also get an interface to disk- and memory-space requirements?
> > 
> > Something like:
> >   
> >   EREQUIRE_DISK="2G"
> >   EREQUIRE_MEMORY="1G"
> > 
> > which gets checked in pre_pkg_setup?
> 
> Is there anything the package mangler can do better than check-reqs
> here?

It can do it w/out going to bash, which is going to slow down the 
resolution validation- the time spent on pkg_pretend, particularly bad 
ones, is surprisingly high.

One potential thought there; for things like kernel checks, it would 
be nice if there was some way to cache those results.

Specifically, have the check set a var/id in some fashion, which the 
PM then exposes in later pkg_pretend invocations, which the 
eclass/bash implementation could check for and bypass the check.

Mind you, this is a bit crazy, but something like the following 
primitives:

pms_register_pretend_succeeded <identifier>
pms_register_pretend_ran_already <identifier>

Then for convenience, having a handler like thus:
pms_pretend_run_once [<identifier> function <args> | function]

So, using ati-drivers as an example, the pkg_pretend goes from
pkg_pretend() {
        # workaround until bug 365543 is solved
        if use modules; then
                linux-info_pkg_setup
                require_configured_kernel
                _check_kernel_config
        fi
}

to
pkg_pretend() {
  if use modules; then 
    linux-info_pkg_setup
    pms_pretend_run_once require_configured_kernel
    pms_pretend_run_once _check_kernel-config
  fi
}

You get the idea; in doing so, we'd chop .3s-1s off every one of 
those.

Either way, just a thought- feel free to shred it.
~harring



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5
  2012-04-29  3:13                                                         ` Brian Harring
@ 2012-04-29  6:47                                                           ` Michał Górny
  2012-04-29  7:12                                                             ` Brian Harring
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 42+ messages in thread
From: Michał Górny @ 2012-04-29  6:47 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms; +Cc: ferringb

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1561 bytes --]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 20:13:41 -0700
Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 12:26:41PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > >>>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 12:11:38 +0200
> > > Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > >> >>>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > >> >> > * Get a versionator replacement into the PM
> > >> >> 
> > >> >> Given the long time it's been in limbo I doubt that this will
> > >> >> be a quick feature. (But I'll be glad if you convince me of
> > >> >> the opposite.)
> > >> 
> > >> > I thought we just didn't have that because we couldn't add new
> > >> > global scope functions.
> > >> 
> > >> But can we already for EAPI 5? Wouldn't the following:
> > >> 
> > >> EAPI=5
> > >> MY_PV=$(new_pm_version_mangler_function ${PV})
> > >> 
> > >> still fail for old package managers that don't implement EAPI
> > >> parsing?
> > 
> > > Didn't the Council effectively vote to ignore that problem?
> > 
> > Yes, but after some reasonable transition period.
> 
> <insert my ongoing "Gee, lovely fucking approach to designing a 
> compatibility mechanism"/>
> 
> For EAPI5, all global scope functionality/bash version/take your pick 
> has to be taken off the table, and held back till EAPI6- w/ the 
> timeline for EAPI6 being "a reasonable transition period" after EAPI5 
> has been stabled in portage.

Usually, the transition period ends when we no longer bikeshed
the topic.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5
  2012-04-29  6:47                                                           ` Michał Górny
@ 2012-04-29  7:12                                                             ` Brian Harring
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread
From: Brian Harring @ 2012-04-29  7:12 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: Micha?? G??rny; +Cc: gentoo-pms

On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 08:47:27AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 20:13:41 -0700
> Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 12:26:41PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 12:11:38 +0200
> > > > Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > >> >> > * Get a versionator replacement into the PM
> > > >> >> 
> > > >> >> Given the long time it's been in limbo I doubt that this will
> > > >> >> be a quick feature. (But I'll be glad if you convince me of
> > > >> >> the opposite.)
> > > >> 
> > > >> > I thought we just didn't have that because we couldn't add new
> > > >> > global scope functions.
> > > >> 
> > > >> But can we already for EAPI 5? Wouldn't the following:
> > > >> 
> > > >> EAPI=5
> > > >> MY_PV=$(new_pm_version_mangler_function ${PV})
> > > >> 
> > > >> still fail for old package managers that don't implement EAPI
> > > >> parsing?
> > > 
> > > > Didn't the Council effectively vote to ignore that problem?
> > > 
> > > Yes, but after some reasonable transition period.
> > 
> > <insert my ongoing "Gee, lovely fucking approach to designing a 
> > compatibility mechanism"/>
> > 
> > For EAPI5, all global scope functionality/bash version/take your pick 
> > has to be taken off the table, and held back till EAPI6- w/ the 
> > timeline for EAPI6 being "a reasonable transition period" after EAPI5 
> > has been stabled in portage.
> 
> Usually, the transition period ends when we no longer bikeshed
> the topic.

Future suggestion: if you're going to try and be a smart ass, do it 
when you're right.  Not even sure how you could comment on transition 
periods since the last time this occured was in '06, but hey, have at 
it.


Continuing the point (w/ specific details so mgorny actually listens 
this time), referring to 
http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Alternate_EAPI_mechanisms ,
the rules were to be "deploy the EAPI parsing, don't break existing 
mechanism for <reasonable transition period>, then go nuts".


So... if we abide by what was actually voted upon, our options are as 
follows:

1) No global scope crap in EAPI5.  Land it in EAPI6 since that's 
likely going to land past the compatibility window.  This is what I 
stated above; it sucks, but welcome to compatibility.

2) Stable a portage w/ the parsing now, delay EAPI5 till the 
compatibility window is over.  This sucks worse than #1 in my view.

3) Decide we don't actually care about compatibility (despite the 
proposal being about *compatibility*), and just deploy global crap in 
EAPI5 and ignore compatibility related breakage.  Smugly label anyone 
bringing these issues up as bikeshedding, eventually comparing them to 
ciaran.

So... bikeshed about the options, but we choose one of them.

~brian




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5 (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making user patches globally available)
  2012-04-29  3:24                                                   ` Brian Harring
@ 2012-04-29 14:20                                                     ` Tiziano Müller
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread
From: Tiziano Müller @ 2012-04-29 14:20 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2367 bytes --]

Am Samstag, den 28.04.2012, 20:24 -0700 schrieb Brian Harring:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 06:14:30PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 19:11:03 +0200
> > Tiziano M??ller <dev-zero@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > Could we also get an interface to disk- and memory-space requirements?
> > > 
> > > Something like:
> > >   
> > >   EREQUIRE_DISK="2G"
> > >   EREQUIRE_MEMORY="1G"
> > > 
> > > which gets checked in pre_pkg_setup?
> > 
> > Is there anything the package mangler can do better than check-reqs
> > here?
> 
> It can do it w/out going to bash, which is going to slow down the 
> resolution validation- the time spent on pkg_pretend, particularly bad 
> ones, is surprisingly high.

pkg_pretend is not the (only) place to do the check since the available
space may change during the install (for example when telling the PM to
skip failed packages which may leave intermediate files of those
packages for investigation).

Furthermore, especially $T may not be available at pkg_pretend time.

> 
> One potential thought there; for things like kernel checks, it would 
> be nice if there was some way to cache those results.
> 
> Specifically, have the check set a var/id in some fashion, which the 
> PM then exposes in later pkg_pretend invocations, which the 
> eclass/bash implementation could check for and bypass the check.
> 
> Mind you, this is a bit crazy, but something like the following 
> primitives:
> 
> pms_register_pretend_succeeded <identifier>
> pms_register_pretend_ran_already <identifier>
> 
> Then for convenience, having a handler like thus:
> pms_pretend_run_once [<identifier> function <args> | function]
> 
> So, using ati-drivers as an example, the pkg_pretend goes from
> pkg_pretend() {
>         # workaround until bug 365543 is solved
>         if use modules; then
>                 linux-info_pkg_setup
>                 require_configured_kernel
>                 _check_kernel_config
>         fi
> }
> 
> to
> pkg_pretend() {
>   if use modules; then 
>     linux-info_pkg_setup
>     pms_pretend_run_once require_configured_kernel
>     pms_pretend_run_once _check_kernel-config
>   fi
> }
> 
> You get the idea; in doing so, we'd chop .3s-1s off every one of 
> those.
> 
> Either way, just a thought- feel free to shred it.
> ~harring
> 


[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3551 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5
  2012-04-27 22:01                                               ` [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5 Ulrich Mueller
  2012-04-28  9:36                                                 ` Ciaran McCreesh
@ 2012-04-29 16:20                                                 ` Ralph Sennhauser
  2012-04-29 16:50                                                   ` Ciaran McCreesh
  2012-04-29 17:39                                                   ` Ulrich Mueller
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 42+ messages in thread
From: Ralph Sennhauser @ 2012-04-29 16:20 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2132 bytes --]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 00:01:54 +0200
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:

> >>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 21:58:24 +0200
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> Of course, if we take the 'quick EAPI 5 route', it won't include
> >> anything useful. In the meantime, do we have a complete list of
> >> candidates for EAPI 5?
> 
> > Let's continue this on the PMS list.
> 
> > * user patches
> 
> > * EAPI parsing
> 
> > * the things that were left out of 4:
> 
> >     + slot operator deps
> 
> >     + profile IUSE
> 
> > * No -j1 for src_test
> 
> > * Remove deprecated stuff
> 
> Hm, remove IMAGE. Anything else?
> 
> > * Zero or one REQUIRED_USE operator
> 
> No objections from me to all of the above.
> 
> > These might be cheap now?
> 
> > * New bash version
> 
> Too early, IMHO. Let's implement EAPI parsing first, then wait for
> some reasonable time (which presumably means EAPI 6).
> 
> > * Get a versionator replacement into the PM
> 
> Given the long time it's been in limbo I doubt that this will be a
> quick feature. (But I'll be glad if you convince me of the opposite.)
> 
> Other cheap stuff:
> 
> * Mandate GNU find (bug 384157)
> * Add an EBUILD_PHASE_FUNC variable (bug 390765)
> * usex: new "use" type helper (bug 382963)
> * econf: append --disable-silent-rules (bug 379497)
> 
> Ulrich
> 

* IMPLICIT_IUSE

  Finally allow to write legal ebuilds respecting Prefix wish to not
  have to add prefix to IUSE. A solution was proposed and approved by
  council.

  https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366555

* EJOBS

  Long standing wish. MAKEOPTS parsing for getting a job value is
  error prone as bug reports do prove.

  http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_750e33f68b16d971dff1f40dd9145e56.xml

* doheader

  thought myself before this should be available for consistency.

  https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21310

* standard input for new* / here* helper

  also rather cheap to implement.

  https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=263565

Ralph

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5
  2012-04-29 16:20                                                 ` Ralph Sennhauser
@ 2012-04-29 16:50                                                   ` Ciaran McCreesh
  2012-04-29 17:38                                                     ` Ralph Sennhauser
  2012-04-29 17:41                                                     ` Ralph Sennhauser
  2012-04-29 17:39                                                   ` Ulrich Mueller
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 42+ messages in thread
From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-04-29 16:50 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 514 bytes --]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:20:01 +0200
Ralph Sennhauser <sera@gentoo.org> wrote:
> * IMPLICIT_IUSE
> 
>   Finally allow to write legal ebuilds respecting Prefix wish to not
>   have to add prefix to IUSE. A solution was proposed and approved by
>   council.
> 
>   https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366555

That one's one of the "things that were left out of EAPI 4".
IMPLICIT_IUSE isn't something you can do on its own without the rest of
the original-EAPI-3 USE cleanup.


-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5
  2012-04-29 16:50                                                   ` Ciaran McCreesh
@ 2012-04-29 17:38                                                     ` Ralph Sennhauser
  2012-04-29 17:48                                                       ` Ciaran McCreesh
  2012-04-29 17:41                                                     ` Ralph Sennhauser
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 42+ messages in thread
From: Ralph Sennhauser @ 2012-04-29 17:38 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 951 bytes --]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 17:50:43 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:20:01 +0200
> Ralph Sennhauser <sera@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > * IMPLICIT_IUSE
> > 
> >   Finally allow to write legal ebuilds respecting Prefix wish to not
> >   have to add prefix to IUSE. A solution was proposed and approved
> > by council.
> > 
> >   https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366555
> 
> That one's one of the "things that were left out of EAPI 4".
> IMPLICIT_IUSE isn't something you can do on its own without the rest
> of the original-EAPI-3 USE cleanup.
> 
> 

Is there anything beside the IMPLICIT_IUSE left from the original EAPI
3 proposal which didn't made it into either EAPI 3 or 4 but would be
required?

I don't mind if EAPI 5 is the only EAPI properly handling this case and
declaring it undefined behaviour (in fact the same as the current
situation) for earlier ones.

Ralph

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5
  2012-04-29 16:20                                                 ` Ralph Sennhauser
  2012-04-29 16:50                                                   ` Ciaran McCreesh
@ 2012-04-29 17:39                                                   ` Ulrich Mueller
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread
From: Ulrich Mueller @ 2012-04-29 17:39 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms

>>>>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:

> * IMPLICIT_IUSE

>   Finally allow to write legal ebuilds respecting Prefix wish to not
>   have to add prefix to IUSE. A solution was proposed and approved by
>   council.

>   https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366555

This is the wrong bug number. The "profile IUSE" feature for EAPI 5 is
bug 176467 (and is already on the list).

Ulrich



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5
  2012-04-29 16:50                                                   ` Ciaran McCreesh
  2012-04-29 17:38                                                     ` Ralph Sennhauser
@ 2012-04-29 17:41                                                     ` Ralph Sennhauser
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread
From: Ralph Sennhauser @ 2012-04-29 17:41 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 951 bytes --]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 17:50:43 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:20:01 +0200
> Ralph Sennhauser <sera@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > * IMPLICIT_IUSE
> > 
> >   Finally allow to write legal ebuilds respecting Prefix wish to not
> >   have to add prefix to IUSE. A solution was proposed and approved
> > by council.
> > 
> >   https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366555
> 
> That one's one of the "things that were left out of EAPI 4".
> IMPLICIT_IUSE isn't something you can do on its own without the rest
> of the original-EAPI-3 USE cleanup.
> 
> 

Is there anything beside the IMPLICIT_IUSE left from the original EAPI
3 proposal which didn't made it into either EAPI 3 or 4 but would be
required?

I don't mind if EAPI 5 is the only EAPI properly handling this case and
declaring it undefined behaviour (in fact the same as the current
situation) for earlier ones.

Ralph

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5
  2012-04-29 17:38                                                     ` Ralph Sennhauser
@ 2012-04-29 17:48                                                       ` Ciaran McCreesh
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread
From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-04-29 17:48 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 794 bytes --]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 19:38:03 +0200
Ralph Sennhauser <sera@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Is there anything beside the IMPLICIT_IUSE left from the original EAPI
> 3 proposal which didn't made it into either EAPI 3 or 4 but would be
> required?

Yeah. IMPLICIT_IUSE needs the whole redefinition of IUSE_EFFECTIVE etc
to make sense.

Historically IUSE was purely for visual effect. That went out of the
window when we got USE dependencies, but for various reasons the
opportunity to make IUSE correct enough for USE dependencies to work
was missed. Right now use dependency defaults are moderately broken,
since their wording depended upon a feature that got dropped. We can't
start injecting things into IUSE until we have a consistent definition
of IUSE_EFFECTIVE.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5 (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making user patches globally available)
  2012-04-28 17:14                                                 ` Ciaran McCreesh
  2012-04-29  3:24                                                   ` Brian Harring
@ 2012-04-30  9:03                                                   ` Tiziano Müller
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread
From: Tiziano Müller @ 2012-04-30  9:03 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1126 bytes --]

Am Samstag, den 28.04.2012, 18:14 +0100 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 19:11:03 +0200
> Tiziano Müller <dev-zero@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Could we also get an interface to disk- and memory-space requirements?
> > 
> > Something like:
> >   
> >   EREQUIRE_DISK="2G"
> >   EREQUIRE_MEMORY="1G"
> > 
> > which gets checked in pre_pkg_setup?
> 
> Is there anything the package mangler can do better than check-reqs
> here?
> 

Since $T isn't writeable in pkg_pretend according to EAPI it doesn't
make much sense to read from it as well (since it is empty). Therefore a
PM may decide to dynamically allocate $S and/or $T after pkg_pretend. Or
is there something I forgot?

Furthermore, just because disk space requirements are met at pkg_pretend
time it may not be the case at src_unpack or src_compile time and one
may have to recheck it (especially when using cave-resolve with -Ci).

And since the PM is responsible for preparing the environment it also
makes sense to me that the PM checks whether it can prepare the
environment at all as required by the ebuild.

Cheers,
Tiziano

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3551 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* [gentoo-pms] Re: EAPI 5
  2012-04-27 20:12                                             ` [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5 (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making user patches globally available) Ciaran McCreesh
                                                                 ` (4 preceding siblings ...)
  2012-04-28 17:11                                               ` [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5 (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making user patches globally available) Tiziano Müller
@ 2012-04-30 22:14                                               ` Andreas K. Huettel
  2012-04-30 22:15                                                 ` Ciaran McCreesh
  2012-05-13 20:57                                                 ` Zac Medico
  2012-05-02 17:40                                               ` [gentoo-pms] " Ulrich Mueller
  2012-05-06  3:18                                               ` Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
  7 siblings, 2 replies; 42+ messages in thread
From: Andreas K. Huettel @ 2012-04-30 22:14 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 745 bytes --]

Am Freitag 27 April 2012, 22:12:27 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 21:58:24 +0200
> 
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Of course, if we take the 'quick EAPI 5 route', it won't include
> > anything useful. In the meantime, do we have a complete list of
> > candidates for EAPI 5?
> 
> Let's continue this on the PMS list.
> 
[...]

Pretty please, 

* package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force support, as discussed 
on gentoo-dev (there and on IRC feedback was pretty much positive)

http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_6c492ae43ad7c70cef6aa8ac34911adf.xml

Thanks, 
Andreas

-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] Re: EAPI 5
  2012-04-30 22:14                                               ` [gentoo-pms] Re: EAPI 5 Andreas K. Huettel
@ 2012-04-30 22:15                                                 ` Ciaran McCreesh
  2012-04-30 22:40                                                   ` Andreas K. Huettel
  2012-05-13 20:57                                                 ` Zac Medico
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 42+ messages in thread
From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-04-30 22:15 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 671 bytes --]

On Tue, 1 May 2012 00:14:15 +0200
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
> * package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force support, as
> discussed on gentoo-dev (there and on IRC feedback was pretty much
> positive)
> 
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_6c492ae43ad7c70cef6aa8ac34911adf.xml

I'm against this one in a "quick" EAPI, unless you can get a reference
implementation and extensive testing on possible use scenarios done in
time. I strongly suspect this will end up having the problems that
REQUIRED_USE had when it was shoved in at the last minute without
anyone having properly tried it out...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] Re: EAPI 5
  2012-04-30 22:15                                                 ` Ciaran McCreesh
@ 2012-04-30 22:40                                                   ` Andreas K. Huettel
  2012-04-30 22:44                                                     ` Ciaran McCreesh
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 42+ messages in thread
From: Andreas K. Huettel @ 2012-04-30 22:40 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1271 bytes --]

Am Dienstag 01 Mai 2012, 00:15:12 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Tue, 1 May 2012 00:14:15 +0200
> 
> "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > * package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force support, as
> > discussed on gentoo-dev (there and on IRC feedback was pretty much
> > positive)
> > 
> > http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_6c492ae43ad7c70cef6aa8ac34911ad
> > f.xml
> 
> I'm against this one in a "quick" EAPI, unless you can get a reference
> implementation and extensive testing on possible use scenarios done in
> time. I strongly suspect this will end up having the problems that
> REQUIRED_USE had when it was shoved in at the last minute without
> anyone having properly tried it out...

I cannot say much myself about the complexity of the reference implementation, 
however the concept itself is imho pretty straightforward and (in particular) 
not intrusive.

The main problem that I see with REQUIRED_USE is that it generates 
restrictions that cannot be resolved automatically. Not sure how anything like 
that can happen here, where we do not offer any choices but deliberately only 
limit them.

-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] Re: EAPI 5
  2012-04-30 22:40                                                   ` Andreas K. Huettel
@ 2012-04-30 22:44                                                     ` Ciaran McCreesh
  2012-04-30 23:02                                                       ` Andreas K. Huettel
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 42+ messages in thread
From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-04-30 22:44 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1296 bytes --]

On Tue, 1 May 2012 00:40:32 +0200
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > I'm against this one in a "quick" EAPI, unless you can get a
> > reference implementation and extensive testing on possible use
> > scenarios done in time. I strongly suspect this will end up having
> > the problems that REQUIRED_USE had when it was shoved in at the
> > last minute without anyone having properly tried it out...
> 
> I cannot say much myself about the complexity of the reference
> implementation, however the concept itself is imho pretty
> straightforward and (in particular) not intrusive.

Can you enumerate every possible way the files will be used, both in
terms of syntax and intended effect? Can you provide assurances that it
can't also be (ab)used to do other things not on your list?

Can you demonstrate that introducing this in an EAPI won't require
upping profile EAPIs, and that users whose package mangler doesn't do
EAPI 5 won't run into problems with it?

The interaction of the various use related profile things is already
very complicated and messy. We still haven't decided what happens when
use dependencies become allowed in profiles, and we're keeping profile
EAPIs locked below 2 so we don't have to figure it out.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] Re: EAPI 5
  2012-04-30 22:44                                                     ` Ciaran McCreesh
@ 2012-04-30 23:02                                                       ` Andreas K. Huettel
  2012-05-01  8:38                                                         ` Ciaran McCreesh
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 42+ messages in thread
From: Andreas K. Huettel @ 2012-04-30 23:02 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms

Am Dienstag 01 Mai 2012, 00:44:20 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > I'm against this one in a "quick" EAPI, unless you can get a
> > > reference implementation and extensive testing on possible use
> > > scenarios done in time. I strongly suspect this will end up having
> > > the problems that REQUIRED_USE had when it was shoved in at the
> > > last minute without anyone having properly tried it out...
> > 
> > I cannot say much myself about the complexity of the reference
> > implementation, however the concept itself is imho pretty
> > straightforward and (in particular) not intrusive.
> 
> Can you enumerate every possible way the files will be used, both in
> terms of syntax and intended effect? 

In the same way as package.use.mask and package.use.force.

> Can you provide assurances that it
> can't also be (ab)used to do other things not on your list?

Which list?

Of course someone will come up with other creative ideas how to (ab)use it, 
that's the nature of things. (I mean, people even write other package manglers 
replacing portage... :)

> Can you demonstrate that introducing this in an EAPI won't require
> upping profile EAPIs, 

No. Teach me, please.

An indication might however be that it acts on a package level.

> and that users whose package mangler doesn't do
> EAPI 5 won't run into problems with it?

Well. PMS describes the files in a profile directory. If 
* we introduce a new file via PMS that was not in there before, 
* and another package manager accesses that file but expects different 
information there not corresponding to our new definition, 
that package manager should be considered broken because it is not adhering to 
previous PMS revisions. So?

> 
> The interaction of the various use related profile things is already
> very complicated and messy. We still haven't decided what happens when
> use dependencies become allowed in profiles, and we're keeping profile
> EAPIs locked below 2 so we don't have to figure it out.


-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] Re: EAPI 5
  2012-04-30 23:02                                                       ` Andreas K. Huettel
@ 2012-05-01  8:38                                                         ` Ciaran McCreesh
  2012-05-01  9:01                                                           ` Andreas K. Huettel
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 42+ messages in thread
From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-05-01  8:38 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1481 bytes --]

On Tue, 1 May 2012 01:02:48 +0200
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Can you enumerate every possible way the files will be used, both in
> > terms of syntax and intended effect? 
> 
> In the same way as package.use.mask and package.use.force.
> 
> > Can you provide assurances that it
> > can't also be (ab)used to do other things not on your list?
> 
> Which list?

The "In the same way as package.use.mask and package.use.force." one.

> Of course someone will come up with other creative ideas how to
> (ab)use it

That's a problem. We need to make sure that that can't happen.

> > Can you demonstrate that introducing this in an EAPI won't require
> > upping profile EAPIs, 
> 
> No. Teach me, please.

I don't think it's doable...

> > and that users whose package mangler doesn't do
> > EAPI 5 won't run into problems with it?
> 
> Well. PMS describes the files in a profile directory. If 
> * we introduce a new file via PMS that was not in there before, 
> * and another package manager accesses that file but expects
> different information there not corresponding to our new definition, 
> that package manager should be considered broken because it is not
> adhering to previous PMS revisions. So?

What happens if a user uses an EAPI 4 ebuild with an EAPI 4 package
manager when the ebuild in question would be hit by your new files,
which the package manager doesn't know about yet?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] Re: EAPI 5
  2012-05-01  8:38                                                         ` Ciaran McCreesh
@ 2012-05-01  9:01                                                           ` Andreas K. Huettel
  2012-05-01  9:16                                                             ` Ciaran McCreesh
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 42+ messages in thread
From: Andreas K. Huettel @ 2012-05-01  9:01 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms

Am Dienstag 01 Mai 2012, 10:38:41 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:

> > Well. PMS describes the files in a profile directory. If
> > * we introduce a new file via PMS that was not in there before,
> > * and another package manager accesses that file but expects
> > different information there not corresponding to our new definition,
> > that package manager should be considered broken because it is not
> > adhering to previous PMS revisions. So?
> 
> What happens if a user uses an EAPI 4 ebuild with an EAPI 4 package
> manager when the ebuild in question would be hit by your new files,
> which the package manager doesn't know about yet?

Err, nothing? The useflags remain available and switchable as before, no 
difference regarding useflags between stable / not stable?

-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] Re: EAPI 5
  2012-05-01  9:01                                                           ` Andreas K. Huettel
@ 2012-05-01  9:16                                                             ` Ciaran McCreesh
  2012-05-01 12:10                                                               ` Andreas K. Huettel
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 42+ messages in thread
From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-05-01  9:16 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1053 bytes --]

On Tue, 1 May 2012 11:01:57 +0200
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Am Dienstag 01 Mai 2012, 10:38:41 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> > > Well. PMS describes the files in a profile directory. If
> > > * we introduce a new file via PMS that was not in there before,
> > > * and another package manager accesses that file but expects
> > > different information there not corresponding to our new
> > > definition, that package manager should be considered broken
> > > because it is not adhering to previous PMS revisions. So?
> > 
> > What happens if a user uses an EAPI 4 ebuild with an EAPI 4 package
> > manager when the ebuild in question would be hit by your new files,
> > which the package manager doesn't know about yet?
> 
> Err, nothing? The useflags remain available and switchable as before,
> no difference regarding useflags between stable / not stable?

What is the impact of this, then? Does it mean users will start to see
lots of "masked" errors that they should not be seeing?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] Re: EAPI 5
  2012-05-01  9:16                                                             ` Ciaran McCreesh
@ 2012-05-01 12:10                                                               ` Andreas K. Huettel
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread
From: Andreas K. Huettel @ 2012-05-01 12:10 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms

Am Dienstag 01 Mai 2012, 11:16:25 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Tue, 1 May 2012 11:01:57 +0200
> 
> "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Am Dienstag 01 Mai 2012, 10:38:41 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> > > > Well. PMS describes the files in a profile directory. If
> > > > * we introduce a new file via PMS that was not in there before,
> > > > * and another package manager accesses that file but expects
> > > > different information there not corresponding to our new
> > > > definition, that package manager should be considered broken
> > > > because it is not adhering to previous PMS revisions. So?
> > > 
> > > What happens if a user uses an EAPI 4 ebuild with an EAPI 4 package
> > > manager when the ebuild in question would be hit by your new files,
> > > which the package manager doesn't know about yet?
> > 
> > Err, nothing? The useflags remain available and switchable as before,
> > no difference regarding useflags between stable / not stable?
> 
> What is the impact of this, then? Does it mean users will start to see
> lots of "masked" errors that they should not be seeing?

If

* the ebuild is <= EAPI 4
* the ebuild is listed in package.stable.use.(mask|force)

then it will be possible to enable/disable features in the stable variant that 
are not really deemed suitable for a "stable package" yet. All quality 
requirements from ~arch remain, meaning also the use flag combinations should 
lead to a successful build and a reasonably working package. Also, the stable 
ebuild will then eventually depend on non-stable packages, which is bad.

Thus, I would strongly recommend that this situation is treated as a blocker 
for stabilization (either upgrade EAPI or modify the package.stable.use.(mask|
force) entry so it does not apply to this ebuild).
Repoman could prevent such a commit.

It might make sense to go even further and write explicitly that 
package.stable.use.(mask|force) entries must not resolve to any <= EAPI 4 
ebuilds. Unfortunately there is no automatic repoman check during commits in 
the profile dirs which could prevent it.


-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5
  2012-04-27 20:12                                             ` [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5 (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making user patches globally available) Ciaran McCreesh
                                                                 ` (5 preceding siblings ...)
  2012-04-30 22:14                                               ` [gentoo-pms] Re: EAPI 5 Andreas K. Huettel
@ 2012-05-02 17:40                                               ` Ulrich Mueller
  2012-05-06  3:18                                               ` Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
  7 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread
From: Ulrich Mueller @ 2012-05-02 17:40 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms

>>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 21:58:24 +0200
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Of course, if we take the 'quick EAPI 5 route', it won't include
>> anything useful. In the meantime, do we have a complete list of
>> candidates for EAPI 5?

> Let's continue this on the PMS list.

> [...]

* License groups in ebuilds, bug 287192 (e.g., LICENSE="@GPL-2+")

Ulrich



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5
  2012-04-27 20:12                                             ` [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5 (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making user patches globally available) Ciaran McCreesh
                                                                 ` (6 preceding siblings ...)
  2012-05-02 17:40                                               ` [gentoo-pms] " Ulrich Mueller
@ 2012-05-06  3:18                                               ` Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
  2012-05-06  9:10                                                 ` Ulrich Mueller
                                                                   ` (2 more replies)
  7 siblings, 3 replies; 42+ messages in thread
From: Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis @ 2012-05-06  3:18 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 626 bytes --]

* Support for package.mask, package.use, package.use.force, package.use.mask,
  use.force and use.mask as directories (bug #282296)
* globstar shell option enabled by default (bug #414811)
* REPOSITORY variable in ebuild environment (bug #414813)
* Repository dependencies (bug #414815)
* Support for make.defaults, package.use, package.use.force, package.use.mask,
  use.force and use.mask placed directly in ${repository_path}/profiles (bug #414817)

The code for these features already exists in Portage, so it would be sufficient
to update EAPI checks in some places.

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5
  2012-05-06  3:18                                               ` Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
@ 2012-05-06  9:10                                                 ` Ulrich Mueller
  2012-05-06  9:18                                                 ` Michał Górny
  2012-05-06 14:20                                                 ` Ciaran McCreesh
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread
From: Ulrich Mueller @ 2012-05-06  9:10 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms

>>>>> On Sun, 6 May 2012, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:

> * Support for package.mask, package.use, package.use.force, package.use.mask,
>   use.force and use.mask as directories (bug #282296)
> * globstar shell option enabled by default (bug #414811)

As vapier has pointed out, this option doesn't exist in bash-3.2.
I think that it's clear that we have to stick with this bash version
for EAPI 5 at least.

Besides, I remember that in previous discussions (about extglob and
noglob IIRC) it was argued that they should stay at their default, and
that the ebuild should handle them via eshopts_{push,pop} if needed.
This is following the principle of least surprise.

> * REPOSITORY variable in ebuild environment (bug #414813)
> * Repository dependencies (bug #414815)

What would be the usage case for these? It would imply that an ebuild
could behave differently when it's moved from an overlay to the main
tree. Do we really want this?

> * Support for make.defaults, package.use, package.use.force,
>   package.use.mask, use.force and use.mask placed directly in
>   ${repository_path}/profiles (bug #414817)

> The code for these features already exists in Portage, so it would be sufficient
> to update EAPI checks in some places.

Ulrich



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5
  2012-05-06  3:18                                               ` Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
  2012-05-06  9:10                                                 ` Ulrich Mueller
@ 2012-05-06  9:18                                                 ` Michał Górny
  2012-05-06 14:20                                                 ` Ciaran McCreesh
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread
From: Michał Górny @ 2012-05-06  9:18 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms; +Cc: arfrever.fta

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 516 bytes --]

On Sun, 6 May 2012 05:18:26 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever.fta@gmail.com> wrote:

> * REPOSITORY variable in ebuild environment (bug #414813)
> * Repository dependencies (bug #414815)

Doesn't this imply that user will sometimes no longer be able to put
a fixed/modified ebuild in his/her overlay because some other ebuild
will depend straightly on a particular repository?

I think the relevant cases should be handled per layout.conf->masters.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5
  2012-05-06  3:18                                               ` Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
  2012-05-06  9:10                                                 ` Ulrich Mueller
  2012-05-06  9:18                                                 ` Michał Górny
@ 2012-05-06 14:20                                                 ` Ciaran McCreesh
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread
From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-05-06 14:20 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 522 bytes --]

On Sun, 6 May 2012 05:18:26 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever.fta@gmail.com> wrote:
> * Support for package.mask, package.use, package.use.force,
> package.use.mask, use.force and use.mask as directories (bug #282296)

Switching profiles past EAPI 1 isn't a "quick" thing, so there's no
point. We can't do that until the use dependency question has been
resolved.

> * Repository dependencies (bug #414815)

These make sense for users but not ebuilds or repositories.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-pms] Re: EAPI 5
  2012-04-30 22:14                                               ` [gentoo-pms] Re: EAPI 5 Andreas K. Huettel
  2012-04-30 22:15                                                 ` Ciaran McCreesh
@ 2012-05-13 20:57                                                 ` Zac Medico
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread
From: Zac Medico @ 2012-05-13 20:57 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-pms

On 04/30/2012 03:14 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Freitag 27 April 2012, 22:12:27 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 21:58:24 +0200
>>
>> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> Of course, if we take the 'quick EAPI 5 route', it won't include
>>> anything useful. In the meantime, do we have a complete list of
>>> candidates for EAPI 5?
>>
>> Let's continue this on the PMS list.
>>
> [...]
> 
> Pretty please, 
> 
> * package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force support, as discussed 
> on gentoo-dev (there and on IRC feedback was pretty much positive)
> 
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_6c492ae43ad7c70cef6aa8ac34911adf.xml

We'd probably also want to add a use.stable file, in order to control
default USE settings for stable users. This could come in handy for
creating default PYTHON_TARGETS settings that correspond to the users's
latest visible slots of python, as discussed here:

  https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=415575#c5
-- 
Thanks,
Zac



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2012-05-13 20:57 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 42+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
     [not found] <20120415021641.1858ffde@gentoo.org>
     [not found] ` <4F8A885C.3050508@gentoo.org>
     [not found]   ` <20120418185913.3d2fa68f@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net>
     [not found]     ` <201204181340.00474.vapier@gentoo.org>
     [not found]       ` <20120418184138.50153e57@googlemail.com>
     [not found]         ` <4F8F05E9.5070103@gentoo.org>
     [not found]           ` <4F8F0929.2010109@googlemail.com>
     [not found]             ` <4F8F18EC.3000707@gentoo.org>
     [not found]               ` <4F8F3513.2060202@googlemail.com>
     [not found]                 ` <20120425224433.2fa0f2de@gentoo.org>
     [not found]                   ` <pan.2012.04.26.06.18.31@cox.net>
     [not found]                     ` <4F98EA90.4000403@gentoo.org>
     [not found]                       ` <pan.2012.04.26.09.55.04@cox.net>
     [not found]                         ` <4F9967DE.8000601@gentoo.org>
     [not found]                           ` <pan.2012.04.26.22.08.25@cox.net>
     [not found]                             ` <4F99F941.90705@gentoo.org>
     [not found]                               ` <pan.2012.04.27.14.15.34@cox.net>
     [not found]                                 ` <20120427162051.13554e1a@pomiocik.lan>
     [not found]                                   ` <4F9AD51F.6060303@gentoo.org>
     [not found]                                     ` <20378.57067.381372.698034@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de>
     [not found]                                       ` <20120427202614.0edd9c24@googlemail.com>
     [not found]                                         ` <20378.63178.619568.972455@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de>
     [not found]                                           ` <20120427215824.3382e682@pomiocik.lan>
2012-04-27 20:12                                             ` [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5 (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making user patches globally available) Ciaran McCreesh
2012-04-27 22:01                                               ` [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5 Ulrich Mueller
2012-04-28  9:36                                                 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-04-28 10:11                                                   ` Ulrich Mueller
2012-04-28 10:14                                                     ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-04-28 10:26                                                       ` Ulrich Mueller
2012-04-29  3:13                                                         ` Brian Harring
2012-04-29  6:47                                                           ` Michał Górny
2012-04-29  7:12                                                             ` Brian Harring
2012-04-29 16:20                                                 ` Ralph Sennhauser
2012-04-29 16:50                                                   ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-04-29 17:38                                                     ` Ralph Sennhauser
2012-04-29 17:48                                                       ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-04-29 17:41                                                     ` Ralph Sennhauser
2012-04-29 17:39                                                   ` Ulrich Mueller
2012-04-27 23:45                                               ` [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5 (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making user patches globally available) Zac Medico
2012-04-28  8:52                                               ` [gentoo-pms] " Michał Górny
2012-04-28  9:34                                                 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-04-28 10:24                                                   ` [gentoo-pms] Re: EAPI 5 Ulrich Mueller
2012-04-28 14:13                                                     ` Michał Górny
2012-04-28 15:19                                                       ` Ciaran McCreesh
     [not found]                                               ` <1335602418.25644.2.camel@belkin4>
2012-04-28 10:03                                                 ` Ulrich Mueller
2012-04-28 17:11                                               ` [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5 (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making user patches globally available) Tiziano Müller
2012-04-28 17:14                                                 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-04-29  3:24                                                   ` Brian Harring
2012-04-29 14:20                                                     ` Tiziano Müller
2012-04-30  9:03                                                   ` Tiziano Müller
2012-04-30 22:14                                               ` [gentoo-pms] Re: EAPI 5 Andreas K. Huettel
2012-04-30 22:15                                                 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-04-30 22:40                                                   ` Andreas K. Huettel
2012-04-30 22:44                                                     ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-04-30 23:02                                                       ` Andreas K. Huettel
2012-05-01  8:38                                                         ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-05-01  9:01                                                           ` Andreas K. Huettel
2012-05-01  9:16                                                             ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-05-01 12:10                                                               ` Andreas K. Huettel
2012-05-13 20:57                                                 ` Zac Medico
2012-05-02 17:40                                               ` [gentoo-pms] " Ulrich Mueller
2012-05-06  3:18                                               ` Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
2012-05-06  9:10                                                 ` Ulrich Mueller
2012-05-06  9:18                                                 ` Michał Górny
2012-05-06 14:20                                                 ` Ciaran McCreesh

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox