| 1 |
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:52:17 +0530 |
| 2 |
"Arun Raghavan" <arunisgod@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Ciaran McCreesh |
| 4 |
> <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> [...] |
| 6 |
> >> Why would you need the EAPI before the time when you actually want |
| 7 |
> >> to interpret the contents? |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > You need the EAPI before you use the metadata. But you don't need |
| 10 |
> > the ebuild to get the metadata in the common case. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Does the cache format _really_ need to be extensible the extent that |
| 13 |
> we're jumping hoops to support arbitrary cache formats? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
The cache format needs to be able to have keys added and removed from |
| 16 |
it. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
But the cache format is largely irrelevant here. There aren't any |
| 19 |
non-trivial EAPI related problems introduced by cache that don't already |
| 20 |
exist without cache. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives