| 1 |
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:17:01 -0500 |
| 2 |
Richard Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Why? Just parse the EAPI out of the file before you interpret the |
| 4 |
> version and name from the filename. Indeed - you could have a future |
| 5 |
> EAPI remove the name and version from the filename entirely. If a |
| 6 |
> package manager doesn't understand the EAPI in a file it shouldn't do |
| 7 |
> anything at all with it. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Then you get into the mess of deciding what is or is not an ebuild... |
| 10 |
Currently it's well defined; if you start making the package manager |
| 11 |
look inside files things get very confusing... |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> > ..and it means over doubling the best possible time to work out a |
| 14 |
> > dependency tree in the common case where the metadata cache is |
| 15 |
> > valid. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I can see why it takes an extra pass - but does that mean a doubling |
| 18 |
> of time? Couldn't the EAPI be cached as well to reduce disk access? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
It means opening a file that would otherwise not be opened at all. And |
| 21 |
if the EAPI is in the file, you have to fish inside that file to pull |
| 22 |
it out before you can work out whether the cache entry that might |
| 23 |
contain the EAPI already is valid. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
(We don't have to do this currently because inherit hasn't changed |
| 26 |
behaviour at all.) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> > ..and it means we can't make arbitrary format changes. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Well, you would need to preserve the EAPI in the header, but other |
| 31 |
> than that you could actually turn an ebuild into an otherwise |
| 32 |
> completely binary file, or whatever. Just how much more flexibility |
| 33 |
> than that is needed? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I remember hearing that years ago, except it was "well you can't change |
| 36 |
global scope behaviour for EAPIs, but just how much more flexibility |
| 37 |
than that is needed?". |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives