| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:26:44 -0800 |
| 6 |
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>>>> Regardless of what the EAPI value happens to be, the package |
| 8 |
>>>> manager should be able to trust that the version identifier is a |
| 9 |
>>>> reliable indicator of the mechanism which should be used to |
| 10 |
>>>> validate the integrity of the cache entry. |
| 11 |
>>> Validate it against what? If EAPI is unsupported, the package |
| 12 |
>>> manager can't make use of INHERITED to see what DIGESTS means. |
| 13 |
>> In the example given, the DIGESTS version identifier would serve to |
| 14 |
>> indicate that the INHERITED field behaves as required by the |
| 15 |
>> validation mechanism (regardless of EAPI). If INHERITED can no |
| 16 |
>> longer be used like that in a new EAPI, the DIGESTS format/version |
| 17 |
>> will have to be bumped. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> So in effect we're introducing a second level of versioned |
| 20 |
> compatibility testing? Strikes me as excessive, especially since it |
| 21 |
> only works for EAPIs where the scope of changes is small enough to |
| 22 |
> keep the meaning of INHERITED and DIGESTS the same... |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
If the package manager is not able to validate a cache entry that |
| 25 |
has been generated for an unsupported EAPI, then it will be forced |
| 26 |
to regenerate the metadata in order to check whether or not the EAPI |
| 27 |
has changed (example given 2 emails ago). Don't you agree that it |
| 28 |
would be useful to be able to avoid metadata generation in cases |
| 29 |
like this, if possible? |
| 30 |
- -- |
| 31 |
Thanks, |
| 32 |
Zac |
| 33 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 34 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkmYq6EACgkQ/ejvha5XGaNumwCeIqaACk67tlvtQNBppUsuOknN |
| 37 |
8agAoN8ZuPYQ5KiFMJj/5syG2/mNqgaE |
| 38 |
=zffn |
| 39 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives