| 1 |
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:07:21 +0100 |
| 2 |
Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > It's illegal, according to PMS. It also won't work with Paludis, |
| 4 |
> > since phase function definitions aren't made available until just |
| 5 |
> > before that phase executes (there is a reason for this -- it |
| 6 |
> > provides us with a way of identifying whether a package has a |
| 7 |
> > particular phase or not). |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> That seems a bit implementation-specific; how one alternative package |
| 10 |
> manager generates that metadata isn't important (though it does seem |
| 11 |
> odd that you think it has to be done at that point) nor should it get |
| 12 |
> in the way. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
The whole point of PMS is that it provides a way to avoid relying upon |
| 15 |
implementation specific things. There are currently no packages that |
| 16 |
rely upon calling phase functions in the wrong place, and there are |
| 17 |
good reasons a package manager might want to avoid implementing things |
| 18 |
in a way such that doing so is legal, so we don't allow it. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Also, I don't think it has to be done at that point. I think it's |
| 21 |
convenient to do it at that point, and when combined with several other |
| 22 |
reasons doing it that way is the best option. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Strange how you repeatedly seem to pop up in favour of doing whatever |
| 25 |
you think will cause most inconvenience to Paludis, though... |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives