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 1SOOJR-0005UV-Sy for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 29 Apr 2012 07:12:54 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 753CEE06FC; Sun, 29 Apr 2012 07:12:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pz0-f51.google.com (mail-pz0-f51.google.com [209.85.210.51]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C954E06FC for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2012 07:12:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by dadz8 with SMTP id z8so2759006dad.10 for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2012 00:12:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=Yzf+U+XVCxlMBxOFLUvokb85+yQf/Ws2zU8kslDmLcI=; b=FAEcTGgYD2nx24tGptaMs+TK2GjKoxB3KRla2SpFF2snrqsDcmMe6nXqgp1HFxEjJi tN2fWgZXUWuwYCWBxapqDy+FhtB7fWYwz+a0AAZ5c6hLHoQQrAzJ9uzIT36KQzpBf32m 0JxmKyMTf+feR9tLDcmYqjp8SR3W9/ERywJC+dd+Xo1ss0FaxC+6UeqXdQrjgNnTP91D oVtSPD45O+p+3X5cCKjSmJytCebyMv+yxZkXJYRXhgXA+R0NlWecVca9PYBBdC0oWEAU Sy0yUSjIk9dbGQUiBWMrZwBnxBBD+h8ci0Hz9Aj3NQ9WkMtE0low+EJFpYRNmML3zVib xwwQ== Received: by 10.68.135.38 with SMTP id pp6mr14023580pbb.82.1335683550372; Sun, 29 Apr 2012 00:12:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.gmail.com:587 (74-95-192-101-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [74.95.192.101]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id vq9sm1349531pbc.18.2012.04.29.00.12.27 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 29 Apr 2012 00:12:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp.gmail.com:587 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 29 Apr 2012 00:12:38 -0700 Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 00:12:38 -0700 From: Brian Harring To: Micha?? G??rny Cc: gentoo-pms@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] EAPI 5 Message-ID: <20120429071238.GC3134@localhost> References: <20378.63178.619568.972455@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20120427215824.3382e682@pomiocik.lan> <20120427211227.613709a2@googlemail.com> <20379.5970.885619.946069@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20120428103640.799dcfaf@googlemail.com> <20379.49754.946726.653449@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20120428111431.51350910@googlemail.com> <20379.50657.771443.412191@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20120429031341.GA3134@localhost> <20120429084727.46f38444@pomiocik.lan> 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: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120429084727.46f38444@pomiocik.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: 61802496-44fa-429f-ad6d-58bb8560eb73 X-Archives-Hash: 9c1968b4135da1999138668b2ca8efa4 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 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 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. > > > > > 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 , 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