| 1 |
On Monday 20 January 2014 06:05:30 Sebastian Luther wrote: |
| 2 |
> Currently layout.conf is not under PMS control. This basically means |
| 3 |
> that every PM (or version thereof) may support different keys and assign |
| 4 |
> different meanings to them. Portage's behavior for unknown keys in |
| 5 |
> layout.conf is to ignore them without a warning. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
which is correct |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> The bad thing about this is that some layout.conf keys portage currently |
| 10 |
> supports, may render the repository unusable for a PM if it doesn't |
| 11 |
> support them. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
i don't see that as a problem. alternative PMs can ignore unknown keys, or |
| 14 |
they can implement support for the new keys, or the repo owner can avoid keys |
| 15 |
that don't work across all the ones they want to support. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> To avoid this type of breakage in other areas (ebuilds, dependency |
| 18 |
> resolution, ...) PMS has been created. Since the council demands PMS to |
| 19 |
> be followed, I would expect that they also want the general idea "of not |
| 20 |
> breaking things randomly" to be followed. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
as you said, layout.conf isn't in PMS which means this rule does not apply. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> Basically it's either |
| 25 |
> 1) "We add things as we see fit." or |
| 26 |
> 2) "We should only add things if absolutely necessary.". |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
[1]. if you want things to be stricter, then you can lobby on the lists for |
| 29 |
standardizing layout.conf in PMS. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
that said, i don't think layout.conf is "open season". all user visible |
| 32 |
additions should be reviewed with an eye towards "is this the best we can |
| 33 |
reasonably do". |
| 34 |
-mike |
Archives