| 1 |
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:51:22 -0400 |
| 2 |
Doug Goldstein <cardoe@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Replying to myself is evil, but I'm going to try to clarify a bit |
| 5 |
> more. GLEPs are more like RFCs. We can't force any application to do |
| 6 |
> anything with a GLEP. We technically can't even force Portage to do |
| 7 |
> anything in a GLEP since there's nothing that states Portage is the |
| 8 |
> official package manager of Gentoo Linux and must follow all GLEPs. I |
| 9 |
> personally feel any GLEP that tries to force any action to be taken |
| 10 |
> by application developers and does not include a reference |
| 11 |
> implementation or patches for said application(s), is fundamentally |
| 12 |
> flawed (this is something I look to address in the future. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
It's not about "forcing" anyone to do something but giving people enough |
| 15 |
information on how to implement it _if they choose to do so_. With the |
| 16 |
current GLEP they'd have to make arbitrary decisions if e.g. a flag is |
| 17 |
defined in both use.local.desc and metadata.xml, or some people might |
| 18 |
think that it replaces use.local.desc completely. |
| 19 |
Really, all I'm looking for is something like |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
"This proposal does not intend to replace the existing use.local.desc |
| 22 |
format. If a flag is defined for a package in both use.local.desc and |
| 23 |
metadata.xml the latter should be preferred by tools" |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Do you really consider that to be such a huge deal? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Marius |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives