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 1QcKzu-0004ZA-C9 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 17:25:51 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 831A31C02B; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 17:25:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ww0-f53.google.com (mail-ww0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D8351C02B for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 17:25:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wwf26 with SMTP id 26so2234220wwf.10 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:25:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; bh=qu/NYmLSC0FIIUXFEqV16/ttqhe+1qyZBegV00ck9VE=; b=TofQoM4XUeVO3j0aOrmWc3OLE5EQzbfTunFZsd4tOmV0GfU20cfoC+f2dLHoqLW4K8 aFdbErUEj5ozEVpVLFfmaZWsuW7gx/xpfDPaSjwjxDe0hfubV6gxt1HtHjanVFbTH4VT WYYs/DaXBE1r9GT9inb/+m2IvZZoX5RNIzMLo= Received: by 10.216.236.157 with SMTP id w29mr324765weq.18.1309454740244; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:25:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (cpc1-broo4-0-0-cust780.14-2.cable.virginmedia.com [86.4.215.13]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ge4sm1782320wbb.13.2011.06.30.10.25.39 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:25:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:22:58 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-pms@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] Do we want an EAPI 5? Message-ID: <20110630182258.5fb6ab5f@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <4E0C6F6A.9090807@gmx.de> References: <20110630113154.32b8db1f@googlemail.com> <4E0C6F6A.9090807@gmx.de> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.24.5; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Package Manager Specification discussions X-BeenThere: gentoo-pms@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-pms@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-pms@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/VJ/n7f2zmzE8Zwyfzexw/Tr"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: fa6f1e6db20f0bec70d7c47e08152151 --Sig_/VJ/n7f2zmzE8Zwyfzexw/Tr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:43:22 +0200 Sebastian Luther wrote: > Am 30.06.2011 12:31, schrieb Ciaran McCreesh: > > Should we start pushing for a reasonably quick EAPI 5? I'd see it as > > having: > >=20 > > * The stuff that was left out of EAPI 3/4, which is to say :=3D/:* > > dependencies, and the IUSE_IMPLICIT stuff (especially since right > > now people are breaking the rules and implicitly using 'prefix' > > when they shouldn't, and the rules for (+) and (-) are largely > > useless without the stricter control). >=20 > You shouldn't insist on these two as long as there is no portage > implementation. We need the IUSE_IMPLICIT stuff. The tree's already abusing use dependencies in a way that can't be handled correctly by a package mangler without it. We can't afford to continue having a broken tree because of a major screwup caused by the Portage people not thinking things through when they reduced the EAPI 4 feature set. Also, Zac's said that if the Council approves it, he'll have that feature done within a week. > Are people (ebuild devs) really aware what introducing slot operator > deps would mean? > To make any use of them portage would have to stop updating installed > packages' metadata with ebuild metadata, which in turn means that > updating deps without revbump is going to cause problems for users. > I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, but it might not be what > people want. Portage's behaviour is already broken there -- think what happens when ebuilds get removed. > Could you please give a summary (or point me to one) of the discussion > about :=3D/:*? See the original EAPI 3 discussion. It's all there. > Specifically, why do we need two of them instead of declaring one of > them the default. And if we want both, what does it mean to not > specify one of them? We need developers to be explicit. Neither behaviour is a sensible default, since both commonly occur in practice. Developers must carefully think through which they mean and then write the appropriate dependency. It can't be determined automatically, and it's not safe to assume that one particular behaviour is "probably" what's meant. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/VJ/n7f2zmzE8Zwyfzexw/Tr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk4MsPYACgkQ96zL6DUtXhFFyQCfcKPJoFb7mZv+b0T3BWVSTIZG NtgAnR0PZEq0vUhfKYWWPT6oXRtdgoeY =v844 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/VJ/n7f2zmzE8Zwyfzexw/Tr--