1 |
Stephen Bennett wrote: |
2 |
> Continuing in the series of issues raised during the previous package |
3 |
> manager discussions, I'd like to continue by mentioning the tree |
4 |
> format. At present, it isn't defined beyond "what the current portage |
5 |
> supports", which is frankly a fairly silly way to do things. Following |
6 |
> discussion in #gentoo-portage, I'd like to set out to change that. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> My current idea is to draw up a formal specification of what ebuilds |
9 |
> are allowed to do, and what to assume about the environment in which |
10 |
> they run, as well as defining the formats of everything under |
11 |
> profiles/, metadata.xml files, and other auxiliary information in the |
12 |
> tree. I would envision the first version of this document to more or |
13 |
> less codify existing practise, perhaps excluding some dubious tricks |
14 |
> that are known to break in some cases. Generally, it should be possible |
15 |
> to make the tree conform to the first version of the specification by |
16 |
> changes no more significant than currently have QA bugs filed for them. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> It seems fairly obvious that any effort of this kind could potentially |
19 |
> have implications, albeit hopefully very minor, across more or less all |
20 |
> aspects of the tree, and so I'd like to seek as wide a range of input |
21 |
> as possible before going ahead with it. The QA and Portage teams, based |
22 |
> on my enquiries in IRC, seem broadly in favour, and I would imagine |
23 |
> that this could be very helpful to Gentoo/ALT as well, so I'd like |
24 |
> opinions from others at this point. Would you support such an effort, |
25 |
> whether passively or actively? Would you oppose it? If so, why? Final |
26 |
> implementation of it would I assume require the Council's approval; |
27 |
> while I won't ask at this stage for a formal discussion I'd appreciate |
28 |
> the views of its members on whether such an initiative is likely to |
29 |
> pass. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> Any input is gratefully received. |
32 |
> |
33 |
I like the idea. This would be some kind of portage-tree standard? |
34 |
-- |
35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |