From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4C8C1396D0 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 11:05:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C99F82BC015; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 11:05:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9514B2BC013 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 11:05:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (host2092.kph.uni-mainz.de [134.93.134.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ulm) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2B721341772; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 11:05:10 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <22995.28386.472489.467095@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 13:05:06 +0200 To: k_f@gentoo.org Cc: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org, Rich Freeman , Gentoo Council Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items, council meeting 8/October/2017 18:00 UTC In-Reply-To: References: <2032312.gCecMtFXeN@porto> <22994.37543.695295.140019@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 24.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) From: Ulrich Mueller Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="pgp+signed+Jbw8dOXtcP94L7G"; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 02617b97-c1e1-4760-8c57-ae787e32ece5 X-Archives-Hash: 31322a232e50905da5077a370e3a7693 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --pgp+signed+Jbw8dOXtcP94L7G Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 10/02/2017 09:58 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> Does the PMS actually define what the correct behavior is for this >> syntax? > it evaluates to a true, i.e always valid/resolved. And although > explicitly naming an empty group in an ebuild is, probably?, not > useful, I don't see why we'd have a definition that errors out on > explicit definition but not on an implicit reduction, as the package > manager needs to be able to handle the situation anyways. Why would it need to handle explicit empty groups? If all use-conditionals inside a group evaluate to false, then it must be able to compute it. That doesn't prevent us from having strict syntax requirements. IMHO it is unlikely that anyone would write an explicit || ( ) in an ebuild. Then the only place where this can arise is a failed automatic calculation of dependencies which presumably would be in an eclass. A recent example is https://bugs.gentoo.org/620400 where the void ruby dependency was discovered because Portage flagged the empty group. > I'm all for banning the empty construct in QA scope though. For my taste, we have too many of these already. If we decide that explicit empty groups are useful (for what?), then we have no reason to ban them by QA. If not, then why should the PM support them? Furthermore, code that supports a banned construct will not see any real life testing. In addition, Portage doesn't support empty groups since 2011. That for itself is not an argument to change PMS, but it shows that there is no need for the construct. Ulrich --pgp+signed+Jbw8dOXtcP94L7G Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJZ027eAAoJEMMJBoUcYcJzZ/kH/0KoXGgoHXdOEa3MpDQqqi/d WReQnh9VlVTklegOuZvGw+Tj/7QQcmiG3IO9LEfHYcLt2YMY00K6YwTSCV8RS5Rn HEtMzrKH2Hlz1D5qZCxao5z5VjuuN1UNwOigwL2EL76STnWK8owA3VToybe7076U WIag8/m5eZgUzCWjwz1YZyb2j4SZWzzbgAzKYQBlE1rvxmKq3NuDJ7wkburGmvqP EcoUdX/Rd9O9wyf25tdD+9jLQTqxSzzQx5zgezf0FfmABc4UhG37/sVzHZgRLPd1 JFQwtcxpbK9ohHQXMXJNdnuWFv8XXk+wn1s1NDXl+AIZnMcVvbT22eXgPGe2dvQ= =lhVj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pgp+signed+Jbw8dOXtcP94L7G--