On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:37:26 -0600
Joe Peterson <lavajoe@g.o> wrote:
> Zac Medico wrote:
> > To simplify things, how about if we just do a
> > PROPERTIES=live-src-unpack for now, to indicate exclusive access to
> > $DISTDIR during src_unpack? Thats a simple and portable baseline
> > that will be quite useful even without anything finer grained.
> 
> No need for a convoluted and long name like 'live-src-unpack'.  Why
> not keep things simple (how about just 'live'?).

Because 'live' means lots of different things, and is not equivalent to
"I need exclusive src_unpack execution".

> You are trying to say it's a 'live' ebuild (i.e. it gets the sources
> from a live source) - that's all.  The locking issues are a technical
> detail, and there's no need to spell out all aspects of the property
> in the name; it's just confusing. In fact, you may want to change
> technical implementation details later, and it would be best not to
> have left-over details in the name that then would not apply.

The implications of "x is a live ebuild" are different from the
implications of "x requires exclusive src_unpack execution". Permitted
package manager behaviour is different for the two properties.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh