| 1 |
Am Dienstag, den 24.02.2009, 22:58 +0000 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:48:27 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > Not true. You don't know whether the cache is valid until you know |
| 6 |
> > > what the EAPI is. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > If you are on the user scenario the cache is valid. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Uh. Wrong. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> > > Can't use the cache until you know what the EAPI is. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > The current cache holds all the current portage needs to know what to |
| 15 |
> > ignore, providing the cache in such format will make portage ignore |
| 16 |
> > any future change. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Uh. Wrong. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> The information used to validate a cache entry is only usable if you |
| 21 |
> know the behaviour of 'inherit' that was used to create the entry. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
Well, you could theoretical consider everything in the cache valid |
| 24 |
within the current scope, find the eapi within the cache or the ebuild |
| 25 |
and then reconsider things. |
| 26 |
But the problem with this approach (besides performance, etc.) is that |
| 27 |
it is not possible to make a pm robust enough to not fail completely |
| 28 |
when parsing the cache entry. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
The point is: Since the cache format is part of the eapi (since we store |
| 31 |
eapi-dependant information in there), the eapi must be known before |
| 32 |
parsing the cache data. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Would it be possible to change the cache-format with with G55? |
| 35 |
Meaning: Have the current cache-format for the current *.ebuild and |
| 36 |
another for *.ebuild-N (where I mean by cache-format the contents of the |
| 37 |
cache-files)? |
Archives