| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:56:18 -0800 |
| 6 |
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> If the package manager is not able to validate a cache entry that |
| 8 |
>> has been generated for an unsupported EAPI, then it will be forced |
| 9 |
>> to regenerate the metadata in order to check whether or not the EAPI |
| 10 |
>> has changed (example given 2 emails ago). Don't you agree that it |
| 11 |
>> would be useful to be able to avoid metadata generation in cases |
| 12 |
>> like this, if possible? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Well... The solution you give only *sometimes* avoids it, so it's only |
| 15 |
> worth it if we expect that most EAPI changes won't mess around with |
| 16 |
> inheriting at all. And given that we probably want per-cat/pkg |
| 17 |
> eclasses... |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Well, I think it's more like "the vast majority of the time" than |
| 20 |
just "sometimes", and it's a lot better than "never". |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> It only comes into its own if you expect there to be a long time |
| 23 |
> between an EAPI being used in the tree and an EAPI being supported by a |
| 24 |
> package manager. And even then, it's probably easier to just do a minor |
| 25 |
> stable release straight away with rules for "don't know how to use this |
| 26 |
> EAPI, but do know how to read metadata cache entries for it" whilst |
| 27 |
> keeping new EAPI support for the next major release. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
But how will it know if it supports those cache entries? Wouldn't |
| 30 |
the easiest way to determine that be to have a DIGESTS version |
| 31 |
identifier? Otherwise, the only way for it to know would be to parse |
| 32 |
it and either throw a parse error if necessary or proceed all the |
| 33 |
way to the digest verification step (if it doesn't hit a parse error |
| 34 |
first). |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
> Honestly, I don't think it'll be useful often enough that it's worth |
| 37 |
> the added ick. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Doesn't a simple version identifier seem less icky than checking for |
| 40 |
both a parse error and digest verification failure? |
| 41 |
- -- |
| 42 |
Thanks, |
| 43 |
Zac |
| 44 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 45 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkmYt+oACgkQ/ejvha5XGaOC6gCgzgIcH6D7X/o/vOuWvsS0mp42 |
| 48 |
dGsAn17xnY8bX9IG28Uj3MX42qdrxGrL |
| 49 |
=+Hkp |
| 50 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives