1 |
On Friday 23 September 2005 06:09, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
2 |
> it would be a good idea to give the user some way of knowing that a |
3 |
> package requires some additional purchased (or otherwise obtained) |
4 |
> portion that is not a distfile/tarball. |
5 |
|
6 |
It would be a good idea, indeed. RESTRICT="purchase" or somesuch parallel to |
7 |
RESTRICT="fetch" would solve this just as well. However, whenever adding |
8 |
new stuff like this, as a portage developer, I always ask what use of it |
9 |
can be made by portage? I can't see anything other than passing the |
10 |
information to a user interface to blink some text at the user... |
11 |
|
12 |
Overloading RESTRICT="fetch" to include this case seems like the best method |
13 |
to me. Really, what's the difference between fetch-restricted and "purchase |
14 |
-restricted"? From a portage point of view, they both require the user to |
15 |
dance through some hoops before getting access and there's not really any |
16 |
important difference beyond that. |
17 |
|
18 |
So, if RESTRICT="fetch" were to be overloaded, there is the issue of both |
19 |
fetch-restricted and non-fetch-restricted downloads in the one package. I |
20 |
would think this issue exists already for some packages. How is it dealt |
21 |
with at the moment? |
22 |
|
23 |
-- |
24 |
Jason Stubbs |