| 1 |
On 08/31/14 11:13, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 11:08:27 -0400 |
| 3 |
> "Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On 08/31/14 11:02, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 10:56:21 -0400 |
| 6 |
>>> "Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>>>> I'd give you a link to git.gentoo.org/proj/elfix as a concrete |
| 8 |
>>>> example, but the site is still down. |
| 9 |
>>> Are you emulating all the workarounds for reading previously-written |
| 10 |
>>> invalid data in there? Because if not, you're reading what you want |
| 11 |
>>> VDB to contain, not what it actually does... |
| 12 |
>>> |
| 13 |
>>> Remember, VDB's format isn't specified anywhere, so if you claim you |
| 14 |
>>> can read it, you must be able to read whatever it contains, and you |
| 15 |
>>> can't claim that (for example) rogue 'stat' entries in CONTENTS are |
| 16 |
>>> a bug. |
| 17 |
>>> |
| 18 |
>> I'm reading portage's code. |
| 19 |
> Which version? Note that Portage can't read the VDB entries generated |
| 20 |
> by certain other Portage versions.' |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Then you version the VDB cache and you write your API as an abstraction |
| 23 |
layer to take care of that. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
>> I do not understand why you oppose the standardization of VDB? |
| 27 |
> If you would like to standardise VDB, I suggest you start by doing a |
| 28 |
> decent job of solving that problem, and not just jumping in and yelling |
| 29 |
> about how important it is that some particular file is in there. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
I will take this into account when I write the next version of the GLEP. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. |
| 35 |
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] |
| 36 |
E-Mail : blueness@g.o |
| 37 |
GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA |
| 38 |
GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA |
Archives