| 1 |
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 11:08:27 -0400 |
| 2 |
"Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On 08/31/14 11:02, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 10:56:21 -0400 |
| 5 |
> > "Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> I'd give you a link to git.gentoo.org/proj/elfix as a concrete |
| 7 |
> >> example, but the site is still down. |
| 8 |
> > Are you emulating all the workarounds for reading previously-written |
| 9 |
> > invalid data in there? Because if not, you're reading what you want |
| 10 |
> > VDB to contain, not what it actually does... |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Remember, VDB's format isn't specified anywhere, so if you claim you |
| 13 |
> > can read it, you must be able to read whatever it contains, and you |
| 14 |
> > can't claim that (for example) rogue 'stat' entries in CONTENTS are |
| 15 |
> > a bug. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> I'm reading portage's code. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Which version? Note that Portage can't read the VDB entries generated |
| 20 |
by certain other Portage versions. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> I do not understand why you oppose the standardization of VDB? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
If you would like to standardise VDB, I suggest you start by doing a |
| 25 |
decent job of solving that problem, and not just jumping in and yelling |
| 26 |
about how important it is that some particular file is in there. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives