1 |
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:01:00 -0400 |
2 |
Doug Goldstein <cardoe@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Marius Mauch wrote: |
5 |
> > On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:42:24 -0400 |
6 |
> > Doug Goldstein <cardoe@g.o> wrote: |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> >> All, |
10 |
> >> |
11 |
> >> Here's a GLEP for the addition of USE flag descriptions to package |
12 |
> >> metadata. It does not address any future ideas that others may have |
13 |
> >> had or suggested. It merely gives developers the necessary "tools" |
14 |
> >> to document their USE flag usage it better detail on a per package |
15 |
> >> basis. |
16 |
> >> |
17 |
> >> An clearly motivation explanation that I didn't add, which I'm |
18 |
> >> going to add once I send this is the fact that as per the QA |
19 |
> >> Project, use.local.desc can not contain a USE flag that already |
20 |
> >> appears globally in use.desc. This would allow a description for |
21 |
> >> that USE flag to be contained in the metadata. |
22 |
> >> |
23 |
> >> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0056.html |
24 |
> >> |
25 |
> >> I encourage any and all _technical_ feedback. |
26 |
> >> |
27 |
> > |
28 |
> > Doesn't include any statement about compability with existing tools |
29 |
> > or how it's related to use.local.desc (replacement, extension, ...) |
30 |
> > |
31 |
> > Marius |
32 |
> > |
33 |
> It purposefully does not. XML is an extensible language that allows |
34 |
> for this type of expandability. Current tools should be able to |
35 |
> validate that adding these tags are valid if they appear in the DTD. |
36 |
> However, if those tools do not handle those tags they should not do |
37 |
> anything with them, hence the nature of XML. |
38 |
|
39 |
I was more talking about tools that process use flag information |
40 |
(equery, euse, ufed, ...). |
41 |
|
42 |
> The replacement of use.local.desc would necessitate a change to any |
43 |
> and all tools which use that file and require them to support the new |
44 |
> XML data. This of course introduces a chicken/egg issue. I have |
45 |
> mentioned to infra the possibility of having a pre-rsync process that |
46 |
> condensed all metadata.xml's into a use.local.desc that would be part |
47 |
> of rsync data but not part of CVS. This could be written as a CVS |
48 |
> hook to see when a metadata.xml was touched and run the utility |
49 |
> appropriately. |
50 |
> |
51 |
> But again, this is outside the scope of this GLEP, whose purpose |
52 |
> merely is to provide a way to document this. |
53 |
|
54 |
I disagree. At the very least state that the GLEP does not replace |
55 |
use.local.desc if that's the intention, and which location is |
56 |
supposed to take priority if a flag is defined in both. Otherwise |
57 |
different tools will use different rules and generating inconsistent |
58 |
results. And there are many tools affected by this ... |
59 |
|
60 |
Marius |
61 |
|
62 |
PS: I like the general idea, but as long as compability issues are |
63 |
completely ignored by the GLEP I have to oppose it. |
64 |
-- |
65 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |