| 1 |
On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 09:26 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I'm attaching a reStructuredText version of the spec. You can view it |
| 4 |
> rendered as a gist[1]. But please keep the replies on the list, rather |
| 5 |
> than forking the gist. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I don't like the approach taken in 6. I'd rather state that there should |
| 8 |
not be file collisions between the dynamic slots. We already handle |
| 9 |
things this way in ruby (with a common 'all' and specific version |
| 10 |
builds). |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
For 9c I can't see us limiting users to a single ruby implementation by |
| 13 |
default (the only current exception is www-apache/passenger), so a |
| 14 |
combined ||() block makes no sense to me. I think it is better to be |
| 15 |
explicit here and express the real situation with multiple ||() blocks |
| 16 |
if needed. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Finally, I don't expect ruby to use this unless we can ensure that this |
| 19 |
works with our current ebuilds without changes. I'm fine with supporting |
| 20 |
some code in the eclass to determine which mechanism to use in which |
| 21 |
way, but we won't be spending huge amounts of time switching to yet |
| 22 |
another system. To me the perceived benefits aren't big enough. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Kind regards, |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Hans |
Archives