FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-13-2008, 09:57 AM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:53:02 +0200
Patrick Lauer <bugs@dev.gentooexperimental.org> wrote:
> > You didn't notice the large warning telling you not to use Portage
> > config files?
> >
> I did. But how else can I compare things or move back to portage if I
> don't like it?

You can set up a Paludis config. It's nice and easy.

> > We do what PMS requires regarding handling of inline comments
> > (which is the same as what some EAPI 0 accepting Portage versions
> > do, so PMS can't allow inline comments), and indicate an error
> > (rather than writing junk, as older Portage did) when inline
> > comments are used.
> So you say the thing you wrote excludes things you don't like so you
> can claim things by referencing it as authoritative.
>
> Does anyone else think that maybe there's a slight conflict of
> interest there?
>
> I hope that PMS, as it stands now, does not become a standard. It is
> obviously very leaky and ignores issues so that you can claim PMS
> compatibility without being compatible to each other.

Where possible, we exclude things that break Portage. Are you
suggesting that we should instead ignore what EAPI-0-supporting Portage
does and does not handle and just document things the way we'd like
them to be?

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Old 06-13-2008, 10:10 AM
"Nirbheek Chauhan"
 
Default

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> And why don't y'all fix a bug like that?
>
> We do what PMS requires regarding handling of inline comments (which is
> the same as what some EAPI 0 accepting Portage versions do, so PMS
> can't allow inline comments), and indicate an error (rather than
> writing junk, as older Portage did) when inline comments are used.

I believe this is reasoning is no longer valid. Current versions of
Portage accepts inline comments just fine (so does pkgcore). So, your
logic for PMS not allowing inline comments is based on "some [...]
[old] Portage versions" and does not specify current Portage
behaviour. IMO, it should be fixed to reflect majority (and
specifically portage) behaviour.

Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline
comments, and this behaviour predates PMS.


--
~Nirbheek Chauhan
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 06-13-2008, 10:14 AM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:40:46 +0530
"Nirbheek Chauhan" <nirbheek.chauhan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
> <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> And why don't y'all fix a bug like that?
> >
> > We do what PMS requires regarding handling of inline comments
> > (which is the same as what some EAPI 0 accepting Portage versions
> > do, so PMS can't allow inline comments), and indicate an error
> > (rather than writing junk, as older Portage did) when inline
> > comments are used.
>
> I believe this is reasoning is no longer valid. Current versions of
> Portage accepts inline comments just fine (so does pkgcore). So, your
> logic for PMS not allowing inline comments is based on "some [...]
> [old] Portage versions" and does not specify current Portage
> behaviour. IMO, it should be fixed to reflect majority (and
> specifically portage) behaviour.

But some EAPI-0 accepting Portage versions don't accept inline
comments. Using inline comments in the tree will break those Portage
versions.

This one's especially an issue when you consider how long it's been
since Gentoo has released official stage tarballs...

> Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline
> comments, and this behaviour predates PMS.

Paludis behaviour there matches Portage behaviour at the time it was
written, except that instead of proceeding with garbage values, Paludis
gives an error.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Old 06-13-2008, 10:18 AM
"Nirbheek Chauhan"
 
Default

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Where possible, we exclude things that break Portage. Are you
> suggesting that we should instead ignore what EAPI-0-supporting Portage
> does and does not handle and just document things the way we'd like
> them to be?

Wait, what?

"Where possible" ?

PMS is supposed to be a specification which is as close to Gentoo's
Official Package manager's behaviour as possible while (preferably)
leaving out deprecated behaviour. But right now you're saying:

"We're writing a spec that's somewhat like Portage, but where it
breaks Paludis, we prefer to get Portage to change it's behaviour
instead. Don't crib about this however. We could just have easily have
created a whole new spec which broke Portage completely."

I hope everyone realises just how ridiculous this is.

PS: An example of something in PMS that is different from Portage:
inline comments are disallowed. The only reason I can think for doing
this is to not make Paludis change it's behaviour.

--
~Nirbheek Chauhan
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 06-13-2008, 10:19 AM
David Leverton
 
Default

On Friday 13 June 2008 11:10:46 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline
> comments, and this behaviour predates PMS.

There's a reason for Paludis not accepting them, and the same reason applies
to the question of allowing them in PMS or not, therefore PMS doesn't allow
them. There's no evil conspiracy here, just pure logic.
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 06-13-2008, 10:22 AM
"Nirbheek Chauhan"
 
Default

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> But some EAPI-0 accepting Portage versions don't accept inline
> comments. Using inline comments in the tree will break those Portage
> versions.
>
> This one's especially an issue when you consider how long it's been
> since Gentoo has released official stage tarballs...

Which versions exactly? How old?

>
>> Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline
>> comments, and this behaviour predates PMS.
>
> Paludis behaviour there matches Portage behaviour at the time it was
> written, except that instead of proceeding with garbage values, Paludis
> gives an error.

Well, then it should be updated to match current Portage behaviour.
PMS is not supposed to document "How portage worked at one point of
time" or "The intersection of the capabilities of Portage and
Paludis". It should follow the current portage's behaviour as closely
as possible.


--
~Nirbheek Chauhan
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 06-13-2008, 10:22 AM
David Leverton
 
Default

On Friday 13 June 2008 11:18:53 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> Wait, what?
>
> "Where possible" ?

You'd prefer us to do impossible things too?

> PMS is supposed to be a specification which is as close to Gentoo's
> Official Package manager's behaviour as possible while (preferably)
> leaving out deprecated behaviour. But right now you're saying:
>
> "We're writing a spec that's somewhat like Portage, but where it
> breaks Paludis, we prefer to get Portage to change it's behaviour
> instead. Don't crib about this however. We could just have easily have
> created a whole new spec which broke Portage completely."
>

No, we're saying nothing of the sort. Please feel free to browse the history
and see where we've changed both Paludis and PMS to match Portage, when we
become aware of differences - preferably before posting such nonsense in
future.

> PS: An example of something in PMS that is different from Portage:
> inline comments are disallowed. The only reason I can think for doing
> this is to not make Paludis change it's behaviour.

Fortunately you don't have to think, you can just read Ciaran's explanation.
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 06-13-2008, 10:22 AM
Luca Barbato
 
Default

David Leverton wrote:

On Friday 13 June 2008 11:10:46 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:

Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline
comments, and this behaviour predates PMS.


There's a reason for Paludis not accepting them, and the same reason applies
to the question of allowing them in PMS or not, therefore PMS doesn't allow
them. There's no evil conspiracy here, just pure logic.


Care to share the logic and wise reasoning ?

--

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 06-13-2008, 10:23 AM
"Nirbheek Chauhan"
 
Default

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:49 PM, David Leverton
<levertond@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Friday 13 June 2008 11:10:46 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline
>> comments, and this behaviour predates PMS.
>
> There's a reason for Paludis not accepting them, and the same reason applies
> to the question of allowing them in PMS or not, therefore PMS doesn't allow
> them. There's no evil conspiracy here, just pure logic.

Then I believe we would all like to know the reason why.


--
~Nirbheek Chauhan
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 06-13-2008, 10:23 AM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:48:53 +0530
"Nirbheek Chauhan" <nirbheek.chauhan@gmail.com> wrote:
> PMS is supposed to be a specification which is as close to Gentoo's
> Official Package manager's behaviour as possible while (preferably)
> leaving out deprecated behaviour. But right now you're saying:
>
> "We're writing a spec that's somewhat like Portage, but where it
> breaks Paludis, we prefer to get Portage to change it's behaviour
> instead. Don't crib about this however. We could just have easily have
> created a whole new spec which broke Portage completely."
>
> I hope everyone realises just how ridiculous this is.

No, we're saying:

"There are some things that Portage does that're so obviously weird or
wrong that it's impossible to document that behaviour in a standard, so
occasionally we'll have to consider Portage to have bugs."

> PS: An example of something in PMS that is different from Portage:
> inline comments are disallowed. The only reason I can think for doing
> this is to not make Paludis change it's behaviour.

Did you check whether Portage that's included in current Gentoo
releases supports inline comments in profiles?

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:11 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org