| 1 |
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:26:44 -0800 |
| 2 |
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> >> Regardless of what the EAPI value happens to be, the package |
| 4 |
> >> manager should be able to trust that the version identifier is a |
| 5 |
> >> reliable indicator of the mechanism which should be used to |
| 6 |
> >> validate the integrity of the cache entry. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Validate it against what? If EAPI is unsupported, the package |
| 9 |
> > manager can't make use of INHERITED to see what DIGESTS means. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> In the example given, the DIGESTS version identifier would serve to |
| 12 |
> indicate that the INHERITED field behaves as required by the |
| 13 |
> validation mechanism (regardless of EAPI). If INHERITED can no |
| 14 |
> longer be used like that in a new EAPI, the DIGESTS format/version |
| 15 |
> will have to be bumped. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
So in effect we're introducing a second level of versioned |
| 18 |
compatibility testing? Strikes me as excessive, especially since it |
| 19 |
only works for EAPIs where the scope of changes is small enough to |
| 20 |
keep the meaning of INHERITED and DIGESTS the same... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives