Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o>
To: Thomas Anderson <gentoofan23@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-council@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Comparison of GLEP 54 and 'live ebuild' proposal
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 02:26:44
In Reply to: [gentoo-council] Comparison of GLEP 54 and 'live ebuild' proposal by Thomas Anderson
Thomas Anderson wrote:
> Hi, > > Attached is my comparison of the two proposals for live sources. > Sorry about getting it out late, I had to get ahold of a number of > people to finish writing it up.
I'd be happier if you actually provided it with a better description and/or updated drafts along. The glep54 doesn't state anything about how/where the specific revision is stored nor what the live property is and it implicitly provides/triggers in the package manager. The main technical objection could be stated as "does nothing beside giving a token to describe infinity for a version component as version suffix". The actual draft for the live templates is present at And should cover the concern you raised here beside the following > Similar to the above problem is what occurs when a user understandably > puts =media-tv/mythtv-0.20_20090301 in package.{use,keywords} and the > date changes. Also, what happens if the user > =media-tv/ in package.{use,keywords}? Is live expanded > that early so it is invalid or is it still valid? Having =cat/ in package.{use, keywords} would translate to a sort of =cat/pkg-ver* but would be nicer putting directly an isodate to restrict better what you want in and what you want out. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo Council Member Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-council] Comparison of GLEP 54 and 'live ebuild' proposal Thomas Anderson <gentoofan23@g.o>