| 1 |
Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ignoring possible semantic issues for the moment, |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Please point them so I could fix them properly ^^ |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> I'd be against this simply because it would require the PM to be aware |
| 7 |
> of the current revision of the repository and to transform it into a |
| 8 |
> integer value (trivial for SVN, not so trivial for CVS for example). |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
You should be able to have a generic framework that just uses what the |
| 11 |
ebuild needs to get the sources, standardizing the live eclasses will be |
| 12 |
enough. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> Which in turn either means that the PM has to internally support the SCMs |
| 15 |
> or support some new phase functions to extract the revision. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
After some discussions with dev-zero, I think we'll need a new phase, |
| 18 |
possibly trigged by maint, before I was thinking about adding it to sync. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> Plus it has similar (unstated) transition issues as GLEP-54, just avoids |
| 21 |
> a new comparison algorithm and the CPV vs. atom issue. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Hmm, give me more informations about your concern. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
lu |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Luca Barbato |
| 30 |
Gentoo Council Member |
| 31 |
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC |
| 32 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives