| 1 |
Donnie Berkholz kirjoitti: |
| 2 |
> On 08:29 Thu 20 Dec , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:38:01 -0800 |
| 4 |
>> Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> Here's some other ideas for how to express EAPI. What if we: |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>> Used EAPI-named subdirectories instead of tagging it into the |
| 8 |
>>> filename? |
| 9 |
>> Performance hit, and otherwise equivalent to using suffixes. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Not quite so ugly-looking to my eyes. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
>>> Used (and required) filesystem extended attributes? |
| 14 |
>> Unportable, unsyncable and unmaintainable. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Unportable to filesystems that don't support extended attributes isn't |
| 17 |
> very interesting to me, unless they're common. Out of curiosity, do you |
| 18 |
> know which ones that would be? Looking at my kernel config, ext3 and |
| 19 |
> reiser explicitly support xattrs, and I see jfs and xfs have acls and |
| 20 |
> security labels, which might be usable. Unsyncable would be a problem, |
| 21 |
> so it's a good thing rsync has USE=xattr -- do the difficulties come in |
| 22 |
> on the CVS side? Why do you say unmaintainable? |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Many users might have extended attributes support turned off in the kernel. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Regards, |
| 28 |
Petteri |
Archives