Joe Peterson wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> And a file extension is far less obscurely complex than enforcing
>> arbitrary syntax restrictions upon ebuilds.
>
> I disagree. One is exposed to devs only as ebuild syntax; the other is
> exposed in an inappropriate location to everyone looking a
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 22:35:25 -0700
> Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Did anyone already propose specifying this in metadata.xml?
>
> Yup. That's a no-go, since metadata.xml is quite rightly treated as
> being "not suitable for anything the package manager rea
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:33:34 +0200
Tiziano Müller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another ugly solution: Having the EAPI on a per-package (like
> $portagedir/cat/package-1) or per-tree basis
> ($portagedir/profiles/eapi) and start providing our tree as overlays
> of more than one tree (will end up in
Tiziano Müller wrote:
Another ugly solution: Having the EAPI on a per-package (like
$portagedir/cat/package-1) or per-tree basis ($portagedir/profiles/eapi)
I like the per tree basis and I already asked about that (since makes
things clearer and older portage can be tricked by rsync.
lu
--
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Kills the upgrade path completely. No good.
Not really, you change the rsync paths and older portage will pick a
repo that just has the necessary to upgrade to the next portage.
This kind of things would work better using an scm supporting branches
and tags a bit bett
Peter Weller wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-06-08 at 13:41 +0100, Alex Howells wrote:
> [snip]
>> I often don't agree with him, but can't help but respect the work he
>> does.
>>
>> I would like to see Council move towards a more compressed meeting
>> format -- people presenting arguments need to work out
Hi,
Hanno Böck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This is a recent list of ebuilds using the local flag "smp"
>
> dev-lang/erlang/erlang-12.2.2.ebuild
It is called SMP support in Erlang, and users will expect exactly that
tied to a smp USE flag.
V-Li
--
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
http://
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:40:35 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Kills the upgrade path completely. No good.
>
> Not really, you change the rsync paths and older portage will pick a
> repo that just has the necessary to upgrade to the next portage.
>
> This
Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
Kills the upgrade path completely. No good.
Lemme sum this up in layman's terms :
1) EAPI _has_ to be known before sourcing an ebuild. There's no way to
avoid that for various reasons, all 100% valid.
2) Putting the EAPI in the filename :
+ it solves 1)
+ it kee
Tiziano Müller wrote:
Joe Peterson wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
And a file extension is far less obscurely complex than enforcing
arbitrary syntax restrictions upon ebuilds.
I disagree. One is exposed to devs only as ebuild syntax; the other is
exposed in an inappropriate location to everyo
Luca Barbato wrote:
> Tiziano Müller wrote:
>> Joe Peterson wrote:
>>
>>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
And a file extension is far less obscurely complex than enforcing
arbitrary syntax restrictions upon ebuilds.
>>> I disagree. One is exposed to devs only as ebuild syntax; the other is
>>>
Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
picard_facepalm.jpg
I don't think any of us are completely thrilled by either proposals, but
the EAPI-in-a-separate-file does have the potential for more
flexibility, ie package-wide EAPI.
And it does keep filenames simple enough.
--
Rémi Cardona
LRI, INRIA
[EMAIL
> The simplest way is to change the syncpoint in the new package manager and
> leave the previous uri with a compatibility repo for the older ones.
So we add a new repo each time a new EAPI comes out? Sounds like a big mess.
--
Best Regards,
Piotr Jaroszyński
���^�X��� ��(��&j)b�b�
On 10 Jun 2008, at 12:30, Rémi Cardona wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
picard_facepalm.jpg
I don't think any of us are completely thrilled by either proposals,
but the EAPI-in-a-separate-file does have the potential for more
flexibility, ie package-wide EAPI.
And it does keep filename
Tiziano Müller wrote:
... and package managers which don't do that already still fail.
To put everything in perspective all this discussion is done in order to
workaround the issue of an old and outdated package manager that cannot
be upgraded once it syncs from a too new repository.
The si
Hello Luis.
В Пнд, 09/06/2008 в 18:12 +, Luis F. Araujo (araujo) пишет:
> araujo 08/06/09 18:12:09
>
> Modified: package.mask
> Log:
> Saving Squeak. Solving bugs #163724 , #196984
>
> Revision ChangesPath
> 1.8705 profiles/package.mask
Whenever y
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:22:03 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tiziano Müller wrote:
> > ... and package managers which don't do that already still fail.
>
> To put everything in perspective all this discussion is done in order
> to workaround the issue of an old and outdated package
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:09:04 -0600
Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Debunked according to whom? I believe that some, including you,
believe you debunked them, but I do not believe there was wholesale
agreement from the dev community.
That doesn't really matter. M
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
The simplest way is to change the syncpoint in the new package manager and
leave the previous uri with a compatibility repo for the older ones.
So we add a new repo each time a new EAPI comes out? Sounds like a big mess.
It isn't you just keep 2 repos, one with the mi
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:13:34 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > So you're volunteering to convert the entire tree to the new EAPI
> > all in one go every two months?
>
> I don't see the need and I won't see the problem given right now what
> is interesting i
On 10 Jun 2008, at 13:13, Luca Barbato wrote:
but I dislike empty theories or hardly searched corner cases that
could be avoided with half of the effort necessary to get there.
Yoy mean like adopting GLEP55, right?
- ferdy
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
So you're volunteering to convert the entire tree to the new EAPI all
in one go every two months?
I don't see the need and I won't see the problem given right now what is
interesting is the set of improvements that aren't forward incompatible.
Being that the case you'd
Joe Peterson wrote:
>>> But what users *really* don't care about is EAPIs, and this GLEP would
>>> expose that technical detail to them in a very blatent way.
>> Anyone who cares about ebuilds at a file level has to care about EAPIs.
>
> Not really. A typical user does not need to know about EAPI
Tiziano Müller wrote:
>>> And then how do we deal with EAPI 3, where the syntax changes again?
>> Portage (or whatever PM) reads the EAPI, determines it is 3, and goes
>> from there. If you change the way you declare EAPI each time, yeah,
>> that's a problem, but I'm not sure why that would ne nec
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 22:35:25 -0700
> Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Did anyone already propose specifying this in metadata.xml?
>
> Yup. That's a no-go, since metadata.xml is quite rightly treated as
> being "not suitable for anything the package manager real
Rémi Cardona wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
>> picard_facepalm.jpg
>
> I don't think any of us are completely thrilled by either proposals, but
> the EAPI-in-a-separate-file does have the potential for more
> flexibility, ie package-wide EAPI.
>
> And it does keep filenames simple enough.
Luca Barbato wrote:
> Check if exists a line EAPI=*$, if does and the rest of the string
> matches an understood eapi, go on sourcing, otherwise ignore/mask it...
And placing it out-of-band (like "# EAPI=...") avoids any sourcing
errors, makes parsing faster, etc.
-Joe
--
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:31:09 -0600
Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think a separate file, especially one that uses a standard XML
> format, would be a fine place for things that the PM needs.
XML is a pain in the ass.
> Just because we do not use it this way now does not mean it is no
Jan Kundrát wrote:
> If the user knows that keywords are set by the KEYWORDS variable, then
> she must be familiar with the EAPI. The meaning of the KEYWORDS variable
> is defined by the EAPI.
But that's not really what I find objectionable. There's no need to
make EAPI so special that it alters
On 10 Jun 2008, at 15:33, Joe Peterson wrote:
Luca Barbato wrote:
Check if exists a line EAPI=*$, if does and the rest of the string
matches an understood eapi, go on sourcing, otherwise ignore/mask
it...
And placing it out-of-band (like "# EAPI=...") avoids any sourcing
errors, makes pars
Rémi Cardona wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
>> Kills the upgrade path completely. No good.
>
> Lemme sum this up in layman's terms :
>
> 1) EAPI _has_ to be known before sourcing an ebuild. There's no way to
> avoid that for various reasons, all 100% valid.
>
> 2) Putting the EAPI in the fi
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
No, it doesn't make parsing faster. Had you bothered to profile any
package manager you'd know that.
Do you have any number to share?
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org ma
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> On 10 Jun 2008, at 15:33, Joe Peterson wrote:
>
>> Luca Barbato wrote:
>>> Check if exists a line EAPI=*$, if does and the rest of the string
>>> matches an understood eapi, go on sourcing, otherwise ignore/mask
>>> it...
>> And placing it out-of-band (like "# EAPI=..
On 10 Jun 2008, at 15:46, Joe Peterson wrote:
Also, I'm not sure reading XML is a problem at all - python has good
libs for this already.
Reading XML files is easy, but it makes certain codepaths much much
slower. Not a good 'feature'.
- ferdy
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Rémi Cardona wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
Kills the upgrade path completely. No good.
Lemme sum this up in layman's terms :
1) EAPI _has_ to be known before sourcing an ebuild. There's no way to
avoid that for various reasons, all 100% valid.
2) Putting the EAPI in the filename :
+ i
On 10 Jun 2008, at 15:48, Luca Barbato wrote:
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
No, it doesn't make parsing faster. Had you bothered to profile any
package manager you'd know that.
Do you have any number to share?
What number are you interested in?
- ferdy
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing
Joe Peterson wrote:
No, I have not profiled PMs to try this, but you are saying that reading
the first few lines of a file is not faster than sourcing the whole
thing with bash? Remember that it could abort the minute it sees a non
'#' or blank line, which would be after the first few.
Actua
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:49:31 -0600
Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No, it doesn't make parsing faster. Had you bothered to profile
> > any package manager you'd know that.
>
> No, I have not profiled PMs to try this, but you are saying that
> reading the first few lines of a file is no
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:49:04 -0400
Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 4) Putting EAPI inside the ebuild, but in a manner that does not
> require sourcing using bash (ie comment at top of file).
>
> + it solves 1)
> + it keeps pretty file names
> + syntax/implementation is trivial
> - it
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:56:18 -0400
Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe Peterson wrote:
> > No, I have not profiled PMs to try this, but you are saying that
> > reading the first few lines of a file is not faster than sourcing
> > the whole thing with bash? Remember that it could abort
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> - it doubles the number of file reads necessary during resolution.
The first read will cause the file to be cached for subsequent reads
anyway, so the performance hit boils down to an additional read() call
(which
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>> I don't think that filename-vs-first-line is going to make a big
>> difference in practical performance.
>
> It's about a factor of five difference in cold-cache resolution
> performance for Paludis.
Could you ple
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
On 10 Jun 2008, at 15:48, Luca Barbato wrote:
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
No, it doesn't make parsing faster. *Had you bothered to profile any
package manager you'd know that.*
Do you have any number to share?
What number are you interested in?
Profiling numbers.
Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
The package manager does not currently source the whole thing with
bash to get the EAPI, nor does it open the ebuild file at all for
metadata. You're talking doubling the number of file operations here,
and going from extremely good filesystem locality (which means very
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:38:52 +0530
"Arun Raghavan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > - it doubles the number of file reads necessary during resolution.
>
> The first read will cause the file to be cached for subse
Richard Freeman wrote:
> Some object to parsing out the EAPI without sourcing the ebuild (only
> bash can source bash). I disagree with this argument - every time you
> run a shell script it is sourced by something other than bash - the
> kernel has to figure out what script interpreter to use
Luca Barbato schrieb:
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
The simplest way is to change the syncpoint in the new package
manager and
leave the previous uri with a compatibility repo for the older ones.
So we add a new repo each time a new EAPI comes out? Sounds like a big
mess.
It isn't you just keep
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:11:49 +0200
Rémi Cardona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
> > The package manager does not currently source the whole thing with
> > bash to get the EAPI, nor does it open the ebuild file at all for
> > metadata. You're talking doubling the number of fil
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:54:33 +0530
"Arun Raghavan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, most file systems have a local structure for this data (=> block
> group), so it's not going to be a seek that's very far. Secondly, how
> many ebuilds do you need to read directly to get this data in a
> typical
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:58:54 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, in general, if you rely on extensions changing every time a
> > program cannot deal with a new feature of a file format, it would be
> > quite crazy. For example, if C programs had to start using ".c-2",
> > "
Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
No no. Doing the seek to open a file in a different directory and then
seeking back to your original directory over and over when otherwise
you'd be doing nice linear opens on adjacent inodes in a single
directory is where the performance hit is.
Paludis is pretty much
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:40:22 +0530
"Arun Raghavan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> >> I don't think that filename-vs-first-line is going to make a big
> >> difference in practical performance.
> >
> > It's about a
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:44 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>> The first read will cause the file to be cached for subsequent reads
>> anyway, so the performance hit boils down to an additional read() call
>> (which will probably be buffered by your file I/O library anyway, so
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:36:58 +0100
Robert Bridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So relying on the file extension seems to be a recipe for
> misunderstanding. Why limit the functionality of the package manager
> to rely on the file names? How do you protect the package manager
> from a malicious ebuil
On 10 Jun 2008, at 16:14, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:38:52 +0530
"Arun Raghavan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
- it doubles the number of file reads necessary during resolution.
The first read
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:51:39 -0400
Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I urge you all to sit down and hammer out real use case situations
> instead of the idealistic "foo/bar/baz" concepts.
The use cases are stated rather clearly in the GLEP, which you clearly
didn't bother to read...
--
Bernd Steinhauser wrote:
> And that is, what this is about, making EAPI bumps as less painful as
> possible. The filename is the easiest solution for that.
In any design, there are "easy" short-cuts that can be taken. But
sometimes these short-cuts break paradigms that are fundamental. If you
w
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:02:29 -0600
Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But almost all software deals with this transparently - no need to
> expose it to the user, and sticking the version in the filename is
> both fragile (renaming the file can alter it) and seems like a hack.
The typical us
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:40:22 +0530
"Arun Raghavan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
I don't think that filename-vs-first-line is going to make a big
difference in practical performance.
It's abou
Since there's so many places to comment and I have no intention of
hitting all these areas, I'll just create a new thread.
There's a lot to be said about being stuck in the "grand design
mindset". I know many Gentoo, Portage, Exherbo, and Paludis developers
are clearly coming to that point in
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:08:21 -0400
Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm curious as to what operation in particular we're looking at.
> Let's say I type in "paludis --sync":
paludis --sync doesn't use metadata.
> Next, suppose I type in "paludis -pi world":
If it's straight after a --
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| No, it results in a new open() on a file that's elsewhere on disk, which
| results in two new seeks. You get about fifty seeks per second.
The speed issues aren't really a concern, since the GLEP suggests that
the ebuild must
Joe Peterson schrieb:
Bernd Steinhauser wrote:
And that is, what this is about, making EAPI bumps as less painful as
possible. The filename is the easiest solution for that.
In any design, there are "easy" short-cuts that can be taken. But
sometimes these short-cuts break paradigms that are f
Let's try to aim to do an EAPI=2 sometime soonish since Portage now has
USE flag depends in version 2.2 which is looming on the horizon. It'd be
nice to hit the ground running with supporting these. I know it'll be
trivial for the Paludis and pkgcore guys to make this work since they
already su
Doug Goldstein wrote:
Let's try to aim to do an EAPI=2 sometime soonish since Portage now
has USE flag depends in version 2.2 which is looming on the horizon.
It'd be nice to hit the ground running with supporting these. I know
it'll be trivial for the Paludis and pkgcore guys to make this work
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Patrick Lauer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So EAPI 2 is not "everything shiny", but a small iterative improvement to
> EAPI 1.
>
> Suggest features then and let's discuss!
For reference of existing ideas -- https://bugs.gentoo.org/174380 -- a
tracker for EAPI feat
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Patrick Lauer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So EAPI 2 is not "everything shiny", but a small iterative improvement to
EAPI 1.
Suggest features then and let's discuss!
For reference of existing ideas -- https://bugs.gentoo.org/1743
# Tobias Heinlein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (10 Jun 2008)
# Masked for removal on 20 Jun 2008.
# Pulls in kdelibs of which all current versions are providing
# the same functionality, thus already blocking ksync.
kde-base/ksync
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 17:39, Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At this point, we should really only discuss features that all 3 package
> managers have implemented.
I'm not sure that's a good idea, only two have implemented EAPI 1 so far.
--
Richard Brown
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:01:00PM +0200, Rémi Cardona wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
> >Kills the upgrade path completely. No good.
>
> Lemme sum this up in layman's terms :
>
> 1) EAPI _has_ to be known before sourcing an ebuild. There's no way to
> avoid that for various reasons, all 100%
On Tuesday 10 June 2008 16:54:49 Richard Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 17:39, Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At this point, we should really only discuss features that all 3 package
> > managers have implemented.
>
> I'm not sure that's a good idea, only two have implemented
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 03:02:28PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Except that currently, the ebuild file isn't opened for read. So it's
> not in memory at all.
Why would you need the EAPI before the time when you actually want to
interpret the contents?
OG.
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org ma
Olivier Galibert a écrit :
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:01:00PM +0200, Rémi Cardona wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
Kills the upgrade path completely. No good.
Lemme sum this up in layman's terms :
1) EAPI _has_ to be known before sourcing an ebuild. There's no way to
avoid that for various r
On 10 Jun 2008, at 19:06, Patrick Lauer wrote:
On Tuesday 10 June 2008 16:54:49 Richard Brown wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 17:39, Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
At this point, we should really only discuss features that all 3
package
managers have implemented.
I'm not sure t
On 10 Jun 2008, at 18:39, Doug Goldstein wrote:
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Patrick Lauer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So EAPI 2 is not "everything shiny", but a small iterative
improvement to
EAPI 1.
Suggest features then and let's discuss!
For reference of
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:04 PM, Fernando J. Pereda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 10 Jun 2008, at 18:39, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>> At this point, we should really only discuss features that all 3 package
>> managers have implemented.
>
> I'm not sure this intersection isn't empty :/
How about
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:51:39 -0400
Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I urge you all to sit down and hammer out real use case situations
instead of the idealistic "foo/bar/baz" concepts.
The use cases are stated rather clearly in the GLEP, which you clearl
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
On 10 Jun 2008, at 18:39, Doug Goldstein wrote:
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Patrick Lauer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So EAPI 2 is not "everything shiny", but a small iterative
improvement to
EAPI 1.
Suggest features then and let's di
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 22:41:40 +0300
Samuli Suominen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tue, 3 Jun 2008 05:52:35 +
> Ferris McCormick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> kirjoitti:
>
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> >
> > I think nominations are open. I nominate
>
> Then I'd like to nom
Joe Peterson ha scritto:
It was mentioned that "comments are to be ignored", but you point out a
perfect and very fundamental example of where this is not true:
#!/usr/bin/env bash
Putting another line close to this one with:
#EAPI=42
or
#!EAPI=42
if you like (conforms more to the shell scr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
René 'Necoro' Neumann schrieb:
> Hi list,
>
> I'm currently trying to update an ebuild (x11-misc/zim) to a new version.
> The old one uses a patch to disable running "update-desktop-database" and
> instead using the fdo-mime_desktop_database_update fu
Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit:
> which package and which options are you exactly going to change ?
>
> IMHO, it's wise to improve the ebuild and perhaps add some useflag.
I agree. It seems that current useflags doesn't permit enough tuning.
Today, I need to use $EXTRA_ECONF with som
On Tuesday 10 June 2008 18:26:55 Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Let's try to aim to do an EAPI=2 sometime soonish since Portage now has
> USE flag depends in version 2.2 which is looming on the horizon. It'd be
> nice to hit the ground running with supporting these. I know it'll be
> trivial for the Palud
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:20 PM, Federico Ferri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The so-called shebang; very good in my opinion!
>
> Works very well for true shell scripts. why it can't work for ebuilds?
This option was already discussed when GLEP 55 was proposed, and in my
opinion it's totally dis
Mike Auty wrote:
The speed issues aren't really a concern, since the GLEP suggests that
the ebuild must be sourced anyway. The GLEP allows for a .ebuild-2 file
to contain EAPI="1".
Wrong. From the GLEP: "note that one should *never* explicitly set both
EAPIs to different values."
Basically
Santiago M. Mola wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:20 PM, Federico Ferri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The so-called shebang; very good in my opinion!
Works very well for true shell scripts. why it can't work for ebuilds?
This option was already discussed when GLEP 55 was proposed, and in my
opi
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:11:32 +0200
Bo Ørsted Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 June 2008 18:26:55 Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > Let's try to aim to do an EAPI=2 sometime soonish since Portage now
> > has USE flag depends in version 2.2 which is looming on the
> > horizon. It'd be nic
Richard Freeman wrote:
> On the other hand, this is a big change from the present, and I'm not
> convinced that it will actually be a big improvement over some of the
> other EAPI ideas being floated around. However, it is a
> potentially-neat idea...
Rich, interesting thoughts! But yeah, I a
On 2008/06/10, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Currently we don't touch the ebuild's content *at all* for metadata
> operations, except where there's no or stale metadata cache (which is
> rare). We can get away with this currently because 0 and 1 have
> identical cache layouts and PM
On Wednesday 11 June 2008 01:03:47 Marius Mauch wrote:
> > I would like the portage devs to comment upon which of the following
> > features they think could easily be implemented before portage 2.2
> > goes stable. There's still some time since it hasn't left
> > package.mask yet, so I'd rather th
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 05:54:49PM +0100, Richard Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 17:39, Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At this point, we should really only discuss features that all 3 package
> > managers have implemented.
>
> I'm not sure that's a good idea, only two have i
"=?UTF-8?Q?Piotr_Jaroszy=C5=84ski?=" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted
below, on Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:13:20 +0200:
> What's the point of sourcing an ebuild that cannot be used anyway?
As currently seen in portage at least... a PM can be aware of and source
an EAPI it can't
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 01:42:34 +0200
Bo Ørsted Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Things I believe should be trivial to implement:
> > > - Custom output names in SRC_URI, also called arrows (bug #177863)
> >
> > This I'd definitely delay as it probably affects a number of things.
>
> Such as
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 01:42:34AM +0200, Bo ??rsted Andresen wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 June 2008 01:03:47 Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > Things I believe should be trivial to implement:
> > > - Custom output names in SRC_URI, also called arrows (bug #177863)
> >
> > This I'd definitely delay as it proba
Bernd Steinhauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 10 Jun
2008 05:46:47 +0200:
> No, not really. If you have .txt, .txt-2, .text or .footext in a dir,
> you would still realize, that those should be text files.
The first three, yes, by long tradition, footex
Bit curious what folks opinions are re: conversion of eapi
requirements into a function, instead of a var. Essentially,
currently-
"""
#my ebuild.
EAPI=1
inherit blah
DEPEND=monkey
funcs_and_such(){:;}
"""
pros:
* simple, and was enough to get EAPI off the ground w/out massive
fighting (at
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 01:36:01 +0200
Thomas de Grenier de Latour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or you apply to future EAPI's cache formats one of the solutions that
> have been proposed for the ebuild side of the very same "chicken / egg
> problem": for instance, you could use $EAPI as cache filename
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:14:11 +0200
Olivier Galibert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 03:02:28PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Except that currently, the ebuild file isn't opened for read. So
> > it's not in memory at all.
>
> Why would you need the EAPI before the time when
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:43:55 -0400
Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The use cases are stated rather clearly in the GLEP, which you
> > clearly didn't bother to read...
> >
> Concrete use cases instead of idealistic ones...
What, new global scope functions is insufficiently concrete
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:56:23 -0700
Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * easy to shoehorn in for any profile.bashrc compliant manager
> (portage/pkgcore); realize paludis is left out here (via it
> intentionally being left out of PMS atm by ciaran), but
> profile.bashrc *is* used by ebuil
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
