| 1 |
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 00:07:22 +0000 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@×××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:45:01 +0100 |
| 5 |
> Marius Mauch <genone@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > There is one significant problem not covered in the GLEP: If a |
| 7 |
> > package contains an ebuild with a suffixed extension then all |
| 8 |
> > developers ever working on that _package_ must use tools that can |
| 9 |
> > handle such ebuilds, otherwise there will likely be problems |
| 10 |
> > regarding the Manifest handling due to misclassifications of the |
| 11 |
> > file extension. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> This isn't a new requirement introduced by the GLEP. That's already |
| 14 |
> the case with EAPI things. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Partially correct. The difference is that the data that the compability |
| 17 |
check is completely different, so while the requirement of using |
| 18 |
compatible tools might already exist it's worth to spell out the new |
| 19 |
meaning of compability. The potential impact is another change, |
| 20 |
currently if tools couldn't handle specific ebuilds with specific EAPIs |
| 21 |
they would not (silently) generate wrong data in the Manifest. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Marius |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives