| 1 |
On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 16:17:06 +0000 |
| 2 |
Ferris McCormick <fmccor@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> What about ebuilds which for |
| 5 |
> whatever reason are invalid (serious specification violation, for |
| 6 |
> example, to the extent that QA would reject them), but portage accepts |
| 7 |
> them anyway. Must the alternative accept them as well? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Precedent says that a new (minor) Portage version can quite happily |
| 10 |
break such ebuilds, so I see no reason to say that any alternative |
| 11 |
should accept them. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
On a side note, this is part of the reason why we really need the |
| 14 |
ebuild/tree format properly defined somewhere. It would remove any |
| 15 |
worries about compatibility between ebuilds and package managers, as |
| 16 |
long as ebuilds conform to a given specification, and the package |
| 17 |
manager supports it. It also defines in a much better manner just what |
| 18 |
a broken ebuild is. |
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives