| 1 |
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:25:53 +0200 |
| 2 |
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> > * What generation looks like. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Mostly implementation detail? Somebody seems to have ideas there and |
| 7 |
> I like to heard ideas from others as well. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
It's not a detail. It's extremely important, and we can't discuss this |
| 10 |
sanely until we have detailed proposals for this. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> > * How to select which ebuilds to trigger generation for. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I'm fond of sets and I'd extend maint to be feeded to sets other than |
| 15 |
> world and all. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Again, details. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> > * When specifically to trigger generation. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> User decision or triggered by sync depending on a FEATURE. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Again, details. This one *really* needs to be worked out, since it's |
| 24 |
getting in the way of discussing other implications. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> > * The security implications of the previous point. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> None? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Well, generated revision numbers may have to be stored somewhere. |
| 31 |
Should a normal user be able to force a generation? If not, this means |
| 32 |
having to generate templates at sync time for every scm package in the |
| 33 |
tree, which in turn means scanning every ebuild in the tree. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> > * What the impact upon upstream servers is, if any. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> Shared with glep 54 |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
GLEP 54 doesn't use upstream scm revision information at all. Are you |
| 40 |
definitely saying that your proposal will not be tied in to upstream |
| 41 |
revisions in any way? |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives