| 1 |
On 08:29 Thu 20 Dec , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:38:01 -0800 |
| 3 |
> Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Here's some other ideas for how to express EAPI. What if we: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > Used EAPI-named subdirectories instead of tagging it into the |
| 7 |
> > filename? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Performance hit, and otherwise equivalent to using suffixes. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Not quite so ugly-looking to my eyes. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> > Used (and required) filesystem extended attributes? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Unportable, unsyncable and unmaintainable. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Unportable to filesystems that don't support extended attributes isn't |
| 18 |
very interesting to me, unless they're common. Out of curiosity, do you |
| 19 |
know which ones that would be? Looking at my kernel config, ext3 and |
| 20 |
reiser explicitly support xattrs, and I see jfs and xfs have acls and |
| 21 |
security labels, which might be usable. Unsyncable would be a problem, |
| 22 |
so it's a good thing rsync has USE=xattr -- do the difficulties come in |
| 23 |
on the CVS side? Why do you say unmaintainable? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> > Stuck ranges into metadata.xml for which EAPIs applied? |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> No package manager required information can be in XML format. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Says who? Us. We can change that, if we decide it's the best answer. =) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Thanks, |
| 32 |
Donnie |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives