| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:08:23 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Uh, your benchmarks are nonsense. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Provide your nonsensical ones. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> That is not how metadata checks work. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Explain how they work, regen works that way... |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> By parsing the ebuilds you're talking doubling the number of file reads |
| 12 |
> required to get the job done, and massively increasing the number of |
| 13 |
> seeks required. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Apparently it doesn't impact anything. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> But that isn't even the main issue. The main issue is that even if you |
| 18 |
> retroactively pretend that all ebuilds are in a format they're not, and |
| 19 |
> ignore the breakage, and then wait for a year for package managers to |
| 20 |
> try to parse your new format, you *still* can't change name or |
| 21 |
> versioning rules. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
why? when portage would breanch if I put an ebuild with a wacky version |
| 24 |
AND there is a valid cache for that telling its eapi 99 ? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> Again, these are all things that have been discussed at length |
| 27 |
> previously. Please either come up with a legitimate technical |
| 28 |
> objection, or admit that you've seen the light. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
the glep doesn't show any of those nor reference to it, as I said |
| 31 |
before, do your homework and probably more people will be happier with |
| 32 |
your proposals. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
lu |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Luca Barbato |
| 39 |
Gentoo Council Member |
| 40 |
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC |
| 41 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero |
Archives