> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Petteri Räty <betelge...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Let's try something new. I would like to get opinions from as many > people as possible about GLEP 55 and alternatives listed here in order > to get some idea what the general developer pool thinks. Everyone is > only allowed to post a single reply to this thread in order to make it > easy to read through. The existing thread should be used for actual > discussion about the GLEP and the alternatives. This should be a useful > experiment to see if we can control ourselves :) > > My notes so far: > > 1) Status quo > - does not allow changing inherit > - bash version in global scope > - global scope in general is quite locked down > > 2) EAPI in file extension > - Allows changing global scope and the internal format of the ebuild > a) .ebuild-<eapi> > - ignored by current Portage > b) .<eapi>.ebuild > - current Portage does not work with this > c) .<eapi>.<new extension> > - ignored by current Portage > > 3) EAPI in locked down place in the ebuild > - Allows changing global scope > - EAPI can't be changed in an existing ebuild so the PM can trust > the value in the cache > - Does not allow changing versioning rules unless version becomes a > normal metadata variable > * Needs more accesses to cache as now you don't have to load older > versions if the latest is not masked > a) <new extension> > b) new subdirectory like ebuilds/ > - we could drop extension all together so don't have to argue about > it any more > - more directory reads to get the list of ebuilds in a repository > c) .ebuild in current directory > - needs one year wait
I'm adding stuff to this; but its in my copy of glep-55.txt which I will probably send out later. I basically see this as a mix of options and requirements and thats how I would expect the council to make their decision. For instance; if we don't care about backwards compatibility with older managers than we can enable a number of other solutions that would otherwise be excluded. If we want to be able to swap versions of bash as a requirement; that automatically excludes specific solutions that don't handle that case. So in my rewrite of glep55 I'm attempting to make a list similar to yours and try to convey what requirements are togglable for each thing. In the end I expect the council to: - Choose requirements that make the most sense for Gentoo. - Look at the solutions that are left that meet said requirements and pick one. dev.gentoo.org/~antarus/projects/gleps/glep-0055.html for the updated GLEP. -A > > Regards, > Petteri > >
