| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Zac Medico wrote: |
| 5 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 6 |
>> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:56:18 -0800 |
| 7 |
>> It only comes into its own if you expect there to be a long time |
| 8 |
>> between an EAPI being used in the tree and an EAPI being supported by a |
| 9 |
>> package manager. And even then, it's probably easier to just do a minor |
| 10 |
>> stable release straight away with rules for "don't know how to use this |
| 11 |
>> EAPI, but do know how to read metadata cache entries for it" whilst |
| 12 |
>> keeping new EAPI support for the next major release. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> But how will it know if it supports those cache entries? Wouldn't |
| 15 |
> the easiest way to determine that be to have a DIGESTS version |
| 16 |
> identifier? Otherwise, the only way for it to know would be to parse |
| 17 |
> it and either throw a parse error if necessary or proceed all the |
| 18 |
> way to the digest verification step (if it doesn't hit a parse error |
| 19 |
> first). |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Well, I guess you were saying that it should just use the EAPI. |
| 22 |
Given that we don't have much control over how often users upgrade, |
| 23 |
I'd still prefer to have a DIGESTS version identifier. |
| 24 |
- -- |
| 25 |
Thanks, |
| 26 |
Zac |
| 27 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 28 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkmYuUsACgkQ/ejvha5XGaOIcQCfctQ/heCKDzGmls3NNLulodsD |
| 31 |
g2AAnAwOd/JD+sHvDBPQSmx2LOHOiqjw |
| 32 |
=onL8 |
| 33 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives