| 1 |
On Sat, 20 May 2006 15:41:37 +0100 |
| 2 |
Stephen Bennett <spb@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > The primary package manager is the package manager that sets the |
| 5 |
> > standards for the tree. All ebuilds in the tree must function |
| 6 |
> > with the primary package manager. As the primary package manager |
| 7 |
> > sets the standard it does not have to maintain compatibility with |
| 8 |
> > other package managers. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> The current 'Portage defines the tree format' is IMO a cause of a lot |
| 11 |
> of problems at the moment. It would be better, I think, to define in a |
| 12 |
> package-manager-agnostic document just what the current ebuild format |
| 13 |
> (EAPI 0) means. If at any point in the future the primary package |
| 14 |
> manager changes in what it supports and/or requires, a new EAPI spec |
| 15 |
> is written. The council, or some other body, can then define which |
| 16 |
> EAPI formats may be used by ebuilds in the tree. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Full ACK on this one, though EAPI itself is insufficient, it would only |
| 19 |
define the ebuild format, but you also have to look at the repo itself |
| 20 |
(see past -portage-dev discussions about this), e.g. for the Manifest |
| 21 |
or profile formats. |
| 22 |
It's not that easy to conform to a spec that doesn't really exist |
| 23 |
(unless you consider the implementation as spec). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Marius |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be |
| 31 |
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. |
Archives