| 1 |
>>>>> "ZM" == Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>> Portage does not need to validate eclass changes. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
ZM> Then how do you propose that it handles metadata changes that are |
| 6 |
ZM> attributed to eclass changes? For example, see the issue they had |
| 7 |
ZM> with vmware.eclass changes in this bug: |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
ZM> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=139134 |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
OK. Let me rephrase. Portage does not need to validate local changes. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
If a user uses a local eclass to override one in portage or in some |
| 14 |
remote overlay s/he follows, it is his/er responsibility to update |
| 15 |
it when the original undergoes major renovation. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
All portage needs to do is accept that local overrides are more |
| 18 |
important than anything coming from upstream. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
And do so w/o making it impossible to use caches for everything |
| 21 |
which does not have a local override. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-JimC |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
James Cloos <cloos@×××××××.com> OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6 |
Archives