Re: [gentoo-dev] When the version scheme changes
Hi Marijn,
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
PV=${PV/0./}
MY_PV=...
As others have said, PV is read only.
to that new ebuild. This is the cleanest way to do it and doesn't require any
variable name changes or any other changes to the ebuild regardless of what it
does. Unfortunately it is also illegal per current PMS as PV is a read-only
variable. Right now I feel that the gain of having PV read-only (catch a few
bugs?) is much lower than the pain (extensive ebuild-dependend changes when the
version scheme changes). Please comment.
It's a pain, but then again, your old ebuilds are likely to go away as
time passes, and the various hacks you've put in them will be long
forgotten :)
There are only a couple cases were having PV writeable is a good idea.
But let's keep this part of our ebuilds simple.
Right now, the section in devmanual that talks about PV is really short.
Keeping it that way seems a good idea for potential new comers and old
timers (that may forget stuff as time goes on) alike.
My 2 euro ¢
Cheers
Rémi
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] When the version scheme changes
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Marijn Schouten (hkBst)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The benefit is being able to automatically reversion an ebuild. Reversioning
> may
> not be necessary very often, but it's annoying when it is and there is no good
> reason that it should. There is no benefit in keeping the version variables
> read-only.
>
> Marijn
>
I think that doing "PV=${PV/0./}" is asking for trouble, even if we
had a function for reseting it after the change. In any case it should
be a function like reset_pv ${PV/0./} which keeps other variables (P,
S...) consistent. Also, this would imply an EAPI bump.
I doubt this change is worth the trouble.
Regards,
--
Santiago M. Mola
Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] When the version scheme changes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:20:06 +0200
> "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Marius Mauch wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:52:37 +0200
>>> "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> On Saturday 28 June 2008 17:03:13 Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
>> PV=${PV/0./}
>>
>> to that new ebuild. This is the cleanest way to do it and doesn't
>> require any variable name changes or any other changes to the
>> ebuild regardless of what it does. Unfortunately it is also
>> illegal per current PMS as PV is a read-only variable. Right now
>> I feel that the gain of having PV read-only (catch a few bugs?)
>> is much lower than the pain (extensive ebuild-dependend changes
>> when the version scheme changes). Please comment.
> I don't really see how making PV not read-only is any easier than
> using MY_PV. Did you expect changing PV to magically change P, PVR
> and PF too?
If we can agree to have those values writable we could define a
function that will handle resetting all those too.
>>> Not going to happen. These variables are used internally by portage
>>> in various ways, and making their content inconsistent with the
>>> version in the filename is likely to cause subtle bugs and/or weird
>>> behavior. Besides, you've yet to explain the benefit of it, short
>>> of avoiding a simple replace operation in an ebuild, and the given
>>> use case isn't all that common anyway.
>> Why can't portage use its own variables and export these with an
>> initial value but not use them further?
>
> Because there is no need to create even more variables when there is
> absolutely no benefit.
The benefit is being able to automatically reversion an ebuild. Reversioning may
not be necessary very often, but it's annoying when it is and there is no good
reason that it should. There is no benefit in keeping the version variables
read-only.
Marijn
- --
Marijn Schouten (hkBst), Gentoo Lisp project, Gentoo ML
Re: [gentoo-dev] When the version scheme changes
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:20:06 +0200
"Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Marius Mauch wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:52:37 +0200
> > "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> >>> On Saturday 28 June 2008 17:03:13 Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> PV=${PV/0./}
>
> to that new ebuild. This is the cleanest way to do it and doesn't
> require any variable name changes or any other changes to the
> ebuild regardless of what it does. Unfortunately it is also
> illegal per current PMS as PV is a read-only variable. Right now
> I feel that the gain of having PV read-only (catch a few bugs?)
> is much lower than the pain (extensive ebuild-dependend changes
> when the version scheme changes). Please comment.
> >>> I don't really see how making PV not read-only is any easier than
> >>> using MY_PV. Did you expect changing PV to magically change P, PVR
> >>> and PF too?
> >> If we can agree to have those values writable we could define a
> >> function that will handle resetting all those too.
> >
> > Not going to happen. These variables are used internally by portage
> > in various ways, and making their content inconsistent with the
> > version in the filename is likely to cause subtle bugs and/or weird
> > behavior. Besides, you've yet to explain the benefit of it, short
> > of avoiding a simple replace operation in an ebuild, and the given
> > use case isn't all that common anyway.
>
> Why can't portage use its own variables and export these with an
> initial value but not use them further?
Because there is no need to create even more variables when there is
absolutely no benefit.
Marius
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] When the version scheme changes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:52:37 +0200
> "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
>>> On Saturday 28 June 2008 17:03:13 Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
PV=${PV/0./}
to that new ebuild. This is the cleanest way to do it and doesn't
require any variable name changes or any other changes to the
ebuild regardless of what it does. Unfortunately it is also
illegal per current PMS as PV is a read-only variable. Right now I
feel that the gain of having PV read-only (catch a few bugs?) is
much lower than the pain (extensive ebuild-dependend changes when
the version scheme changes). Please comment.
>>> I don't really see how making PV not read-only is any easier than
>>> using MY_PV. Did you expect changing PV to magically change P, PVR
>>> and PF too?
>> If we can agree to have those values writable we could define a
>> function that will handle resetting all those too.
>
> Not going to happen. These variables are used internally by portage in
> various ways, and making their content inconsistent with the version in
> the filename is likely to cause subtle bugs and/or weird behavior.
> Besides, you've yet to explain the benefit of it, short of avoiding a
> simple replace operation in an ebuild, and the given use case isn't all
> that common anyway.
Why can't portage use its own variables and export these with an initial value
but not use them further?
Marijn
- --
Marijn Schouten (hkBst), Gentoo Lisp project, Gentoo ML
Re: [gentoo-dev] When the version scheme changes
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:52:37 +0200
"Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> > On Saturday 28 June 2008 17:03:13 Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> >> PV=${PV/0./}
> >>
> >> to that new ebuild. This is the cleanest way to do it and doesn't
> >> require any variable name changes or any other changes to the
> >> ebuild regardless of what it does. Unfortunately it is also
> >> illegal per current PMS as PV is a read-only variable. Right now I
> >> feel that the gain of having PV read-only (catch a few bugs?) is
> >> much lower than the pain (extensive ebuild-dependend changes when
> >> the version scheme changes). Please comment.
> >
> > I don't really see how making PV not read-only is any easier than
> > using MY_PV. Did you expect changing PV to magically change P, PVR
> > and PF too?
>
> If we can agree to have those values writable we could define a
> function that will handle resetting all those too.
Not going to happen. These variables are used internally by portage in
various ways, and making their content inconsistent with the version in
the filename is likely to cause subtle bugs and/or weird behavior.
Besides, you've yet to explain the benefit of it, short of avoiding a
simple replace operation in an ebuild, and the given use case isn't all
that common anyway.
Marius
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] When the version scheme changes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> On Saturday 28 June 2008 17:03:13 Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
>> PV=${PV/0./}
>>
>> to that new ebuild. This is the cleanest way to do it and doesn't require
>> any variable name changes or any other changes to the ebuild regardless of
>> what it does. Unfortunately it is also illegal per current PMS as PV is a
>> read-only variable. Right now I feel that the gain of having PV read-only
>> (catch a few bugs?) is much lower than the pain (extensive ebuild-dependend
>> changes when the version scheme changes). Please comment.
>
> I don't really see how making PV not read-only is any easier than using
> MY_PV.
> Did you expect changing PV to magically change P, PVR and PF too?
If we can agree to have those values writable we could define a function that
will handle resetting all those too.
Marijn
- --
Marijn Schouten (hkBst), Gentoo Lisp project, Gentoo ML
Re: [gentoo-dev] When the version scheme changes
On Saturday 28 June 2008 17:03:13 Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> PV=${PV/0./}
>
> to that new ebuild. This is the cleanest way to do it and doesn't require
> any variable name changes or any other changes to the ebuild regardless of
> what it does. Unfortunately it is also illegal per current PMS as PV is a
> read-only variable. Right now I feel that the gain of having PV read-only
> (catch a few bugs?) is much lower than the pain (extensive ebuild-dependend
> changes when the version scheme changes). Please comment.
I don't really see how making PV not read-only is any easier than using MY_PV.
Did you expect changing PV to magically change P, PVR and PF too?
--
Bo Andresen
Gentoo KDE Dev
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-dev] When the version scheme changes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi list,
recently drscheme changed versioning scheme in such a way that the newer
versions(4.0.1) rank lower than the old versions(372). The only way to affect
ordering is to change the PV part of the filename, preferably the old one, so I
created a 0.372 version that was to be a copy of the old 372 version. To make
this work I also added a
PV=${PV/0./}
to that new ebuild. This is the cleanest way to do it and doesn't require any
variable name changes or any other changes to the ebuild regardless of what it
does. Unfortunately it is also illegal per current PMS as PV is a read-only
variable. Right now I feel that the gain of having PV read-only (catch a few
bugs?) is much lower than the pain (extensive ebuild-dependend changes when the
version scheme changes). Please comment.
Marijn
- --
Marijn Schouten (hkBst), Gentoo Lisp project, Gentoo ML
