| 1 |
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:51:03 +0800 |
| 2 |
Zhang Le <r0bertz@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> That's the problem about the agreement between PM and ebuild. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> If this is agreed upon |
| 6 |
> >>>>> import vim-spell using language="en" |
| 7 |
> You should be able to get it. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> If not, then blame the ebuild writer. There is no problem with the |
| 10 |
> agreement. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Uh... It's not agreed upon currently. It may be agreed upon in the |
| 13 |
future, but that's no good for current package managers. Current |
| 14 |
package managers have to be able to deal with future agreements, |
| 15 |
without limiting those future agreements to not being able to make |
| 16 |
changes like the above example. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> > Bear in mind that |
| 19 |
> > package managers can only use what's been agreed upon at the time |
| 20 |
> > they were released, not what might be agreed upon later -- and yet |
| 21 |
> > they need to be able to extract the EAPI from anything agreed upon |
| 22 |
> > later. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Exactly my point. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
So we all agree that suffixes are the solution, since they solve this |
| 27 |
problem and in-ebuild-content restrictions don't. Good. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives