| 1 |
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 13:44:55 +0300 |
| 2 |
Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> But the metadata cache isn't per-EAPI in the sense of multiple |
| 4 |
> metadata caches, one for each EAPI. There might be per-EAPI metadata |
| 5 |
> cache items though. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
The cache format is per-EAPI, with a degree of overlap. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> I don't think I want to have to specify userland_GNU and co in IUSE. |
| 10 |
> They aren't USE flags that get set by the user, so having to put them |
| 11 |
> in IUSE isn't intuitive either. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
And with the proposal as currently worded, you don't have to. The |
| 14 |
profiles do that magically for you. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> Some might accept all current switches we pass with econf, but not |
| 17 |
> --disable-dependency-tracking. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
'might'? Have you found any? Given the mess econf currently passes, it |
| 20 |
strikes me as highly unlikely. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> Then we should disallow all constructs that currently give a repoman |
| 23 |
> warning as well? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
We should disallow constructs that can't be used correctly, if allowing |
| 26 |
them is a significant burden on the package manager. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> Unknown types in this case is about "not packed at all". |
| 29 |
> Or we could define those types - .patch, .bin, etc |
| 30 |
> PM knows that there's .lzma, .xz and so on, so it could know which |
| 31 |
> build-time deps are necessary - repoman warning anyhow, later some |
| 32 |
> alternative unpacker might surface. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Uh. Unknown types doesn't mean "fail on lzma if lzma's not installed". |
| 35 |
Please check the PMS draft for what it does mean. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives