| 1 |
On Monday 12 December 2005 18:30, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> For example, if repository-id forms a part of the path and we define path |
| 3 |
> parsing now, then we are effectively defining legal characters for |
| 4 |
> repository-id now. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
This is only of concern to portage developers. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> That's an entirely different glep, far out of scope and |
| 9 |
> reaching into other people's territory, limiting how that might be |
| 10 |
> implemented by defining a portion of the id-scope in an entirely unrelated |
| 11 |
> glep. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
No need for a glep as far as portage support goes anymore than Ciaran needs a |
| 14 |
glep to change or add syntax highlighting in vim. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> Given how heated I've seen GLEP discussion get (and I'm not saying that's |
| 17 |
> /bad/, just a fact), I really can't blame Ciaran for attempting to keep |
| 18 |
> the scope of the proposal, and therefore the debate, down to exactly what |
| 19 |
> he's aiming to accomplish, without ending up getting into an entirely |
| 20 |
> /different/ debate about how he's limiting the future flexibility of the |
| 21 |
> multiple repo implementation. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
There doesn't need to be a debate. This whole proposal doesn't care about |
| 24 |
portage compatibility whatsoever and it's exactly this style of thinking that |
| 25 |
slows down portage development (which everybody loves to complain about so |
| 26 |
much). |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> Once there's a concrete proposal there to work with, then and only then, |
| 29 |
> he's saying (from my viewpoint), is it appropriate for consideration in |
| 30 |
> relation to the news proposal. Don't unnecessarily tie the two together, |
| 31 |
> complicating life for both. Let each be argued on its merits separately, |
| 32 |
> and when/if multiple repo is actually close enough to deployment that |
| 33 |
> there's some actual rules to work with, /then/ worry about fixing this to |
| 34 |
> match. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
As I said already, there will immediately be a bug asking for overlay support. |
| 37 |
Portage already supports multiple in a form whether anybody likes it or not. |
| 38 |
How they are supported and how they will change should be of no concern to the |
| 39 |
glep. What should be of concern is establishing a robust API between the |
| 40 |
readers and portage such that future changes won't cause breakage. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 44 |
-- |
| 45 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives