-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 20/09/12 02:12 PM, Michael Mol wrote: > On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> > wrote: >> El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 10:14 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius escribió: >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 >>> >>> On 20/09/12 09:52 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >>>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:13:40 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius >>>> <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>>> PMS may not need to be fixed, just the spec >>>> >>>> PMS is the spec, and it doesn't need fixing, since it >>>> accurately reflects the situation we're dealing with. >>>> >>> >>> Sorry, I misread PMS as PMs (portage, paludis, etc). >>> >>> And, for support to be official for ebuilds or eclasses to >>> query IUSE (or other globals) within phase functions, then the >>> 'spec' (PMS) is probably all that needs to be 'fixed'. Right? >>> >>> So, in EAPI=6, we propose something that'll make it official >>> (ie a querying function; or ensure that PMs can provide these >>> variables along with their proper 'effective' values, or their >>> in-ebuild 'explicit' values, or whatever it is we want to say >>> can be relied upon, to the environment). >>> >> >> The problem of waiting for eapi6 to specify CURRENT behavior is >> that we don't know how much time will need to wait until it's >> approved (as I think eapi5 cannot include this "extra" function >> as was approved some hours ago). Other option would be to fast >> release some kind of eapi5.1 adding this... but, again, I think >> we are discussing about something that could be resolved as >> simply as specifying current behavior for all existing eapis (as >> we are in fact doing in the tree) and rely on new eapis for >> future hypothetical changes on it. > > The key question is: How would you formally describe the current > behavior? > > I think someone already noted it's not reliable behavior in all > places. >
I think we'd need an audit of what current behaviour is and then define based on that. Possibly removing cases where the 'expected' behaviour isn't occurring (ie, bugs that just aren't being caught). I'm biased, so to me just auditing what portage does would be good enough. :D But probably the other PMs should be audited to before 'official' behaviour should be described for PMS. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlBbXzcACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBqywEAuXtOrfOy6R+JrwIxfAfcueDe ItsysItZBl+dKdsyShEA/iY8Oye4hyTJc01jT2deBmVPGm3P6Iu/0YZ/tismPAHv =2nvp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
