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

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-12-2012, 03:51 PM
Rich Freeman
 
Default RFD : .ebuild is only bash

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
<ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 04:57:04 +1300
> Kent Fredric <kentfredric@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think this notion should be concluded before we continue debating as
>> to how best to implement EAPI declarations.
>>
>> Is it really so fixed that ".ebuild" will only ever be bash ?
>
> What version of bash are we talking about here? It's not the case that
> ebuilds will always be bash 3, which is enough to make GLEP 55 the safe
> option.

Well, we do always have the option of keeping the EAPI= syntax but
making it more strict per the proposals, and then grepping it out
rather than sourcing the ebuild. That seems likely to always work
with bash. Then if we ever switched to some other format we'd have to
reconsider whether we want to tweak this approach further or adopt
GLEP 55.

If you envision a future where big changes are inevitable over the
long term, then just going with GLEP 55 is probably the cleanest
solution. If you envision a future where we are likely to never move
away from bash, or if we do it is so far off that we're content to let
our children deal with it, then other approaches may seem nicer.

I guess the question is whether we need to future-proof against a
future that may never come. Then again, as we're seeing from systemd
a lot of stuff that "always" was done in bash doesn't necessarily have
to stay that way.

Rich
 
Old 03-12-2012, 03:56 PM
Ulrich Mueller
 
Default RFD : .ebuild is only bash

>>>>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012, Kent Fredric wrote:

> Is it really so fixed that ".ebuild" will only ever be bash ?

Certainly it would make sense to change the file extension when an
EAPI will require something different than bash. For example, some
editors (Emacs and XEmacs at least) recognise the .ebuild extension
and use corresponding syntax rules.

> If thats the case, then G55 ( or something similar ) is practically
> guaranteed as soon as we want something non-bash.

No, you just use a new extension once and you're done. And I guess
such drastic changes won't happen frequently. In the past 12 years
there hasn't been a single one. (If they will ever happen, this is a
pretty academic discussion.)

Ulrich
 
Old 03-12-2012, 04:05 PM
Ulrich Mueller
 
Default RFD : .ebuild is only bash

>>>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Rich Freeman wrote:

> Well, we do always have the option of keeping the EAPI= syntax but
> making it more strict per the proposals, and then grepping it out
> rather than sourcing the ebuild. That seems likely to always work
> with bash. Then if we ever switched to some other format we'd have
> to reconsider whether we want to tweak this approach further or
> adopt GLEP 55.

As long as we stay with some textual format for ebuilds, the "header
comment" approach will always work, if its syntax is general enough.
(For example, requiring # as comment introducer would be stupid.)

And I don't expect that we will move away from bash within the next
two or three years, so there won't be any upgrade problems for systems
with old package managers.

> If you envision a future where big changes are inevitable over the
> long term, then just going with GLEP 55 is probably the cleanest
> solution. If you envision a future where we are likely to never move
> away from bash, or if we do it is so far off that we're content to
> let our children deal with it, then other approaches may seem nicer.

> I guess the question is whether we need to future-proof against a
> future that may never come. Then again, as we're seeing from systemd
> a lot of stuff that "always" was done in bash doesn't necessarily
> have to stay that way.

See above, even if we should ever move away from bash, GLEP 55 is
still not needed.

Ulrich
 
Old 03-12-2012, 04:12 PM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default RFD : .ebuild is only bash

On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:05:46 +0100
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> See above, even if we should ever move away from bash, GLEP 55 is
> still not needed.

...but we might as well go with GLEP 55 anyway, since GLEP 55
definitely works, whereas other solutions might work so long as we
don't do something unexpected.

This whole thing is just an exercise in trying to find excuses not to
use GLEP 55.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Old 03-12-2012, 04:17 PM
Michael Orlitzky
 
Default RFD : .ebuild is only bash

On 03/12/12 13:12, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:05:46 +0100
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> See above, even if we should ever move away from bash, GLEP 55 is
>> still not needed.
>
> ...but we might as well go with GLEP 55 anyway, since GLEP 55
> definitely works, whereas other solutions might work so long as we
> don't do something unexpected.
>
> This whole thing is just an exercise in trying to find excuses not to
> use GLEP 55.
>

Not understanding any of the politics involved, what are the technical
arguments against it?
 
Old 03-12-2012, 04:22 PM
Zac Medico
 
Default RFD : .ebuild is only bash

On 03/12/2012 10:12 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:05:46 +0100
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> See above, even if we should ever move away from bash, GLEP 55 is
>> still not needed.
>
> ...but we might as well go with GLEP 55 anyway, since GLEP 55
> definitely works, whereas other solutions might work so long as we
> don't do something unexpected.
>
> This whole thing is just an exercise in trying to find excuses not to
> use GLEP 55.

If we do go with a variant of GLEP 55, I'd prefer a variant that uses a
constant extension (like .eb) and places the EAPI string just after the
version component of the name. For example:

foo-1.0-r1-eapi5.ebuild
--
Thanks,
Zac
 
Old 03-12-2012, 04:22 PM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default RFD : .ebuild is only bash

On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 13:17:15 -0400
Michael Orlitzky <michael@orlitzky.com> wrote:
> > This whole thing is just an exercise in trying to find excuses not
> > to use GLEP 55.
> >
>
> Not understanding any of the politics involved, what are the technical
> arguments against it?

The person who wrote it is one of Satan's little minions. Also, change
is bad.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Old 03-12-2012, 04:30 PM
Zac Medico
 
Default RFD : .ebuild is only bash

On 03/12/2012 10:17 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 03/12/12 13:12, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:05:46 +0100
>> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> See above, even if we should ever move away from bash, GLEP 55 is
>>> still not needed.
>>
>> ...but we might as well go with GLEP 55 anyway, since GLEP 55
>> definitely works, whereas other solutions might work so long as we
>> don't do something unexpected.
>>
>> This whole thing is just an exercise in trying to find excuses not to
>> use GLEP 55.
>>
>
> Not understanding any of the politics involved, what are the technical
> arguments against it?

I think the bulk of resistance has been due to its use of an infinite
series of extensions, like .ebuild-5, .ebuild-6 and so on. GLEP 55
itself has since been amended to include a "one time extension change"
option [1].

[1]
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0055.html#eapi-in-the-filename-with-one-time-extension-change
--
Thanks,
Zac
 
Old 03-12-2012, 04:53 PM
Ulrich Mueller
 
Default RFD : .ebuild is only bash

>>>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:05:46 +0100
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> See above, even if we should ever move away from bash, GLEP 55 is
>> still not needed.

> ...but we might as well go with GLEP 55 anyway, since GLEP 55
> definitely works, whereas other solutions might work so long as we
> don't do something unexpected.

> This whole thing is just an exercise in trying to find excuses not
> to use GLEP 55.

There are very good reasons not to embed this information in the
filename. That it makes the filename harder to parse for the human eye
and more difficult to type is one of them.

Besides, we already have a council decision about that GLEP.

Ulrich
 
Old 03-12-2012, 05:00 PM
Ulrich Mueller
 
Default RFD : .ebuild is only bash

>>>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Zac Medico wrote:

> If we do go with a variant of GLEP 55, I'd prefer a variant that uses a
> constant extension (like .eb) and places the EAPI string just after the
> version component of the name. For example:

> foo-1.0-r1-eapi5.ebuild

This is so ugly... I guess I'll retire the same day when such an
abomination gets accepted. ;-)

(Still better than the original variant of GLEP 55 though.)

Ulrich
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:10 AM.

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