| 1 |
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:09:33 +0000 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@×××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:46:06 +0100 |
| 5 |
> Marius Mauch <genone@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > The issue is with comparison rules. For the current use case that's |
| 7 |
> > not an issue as it's simply a superset, so we could just use the new |
| 8 |
> > rules for everything. But if the rules are changed in an incompatible |
| 9 |
> > way, which rules would be used to compare version(EAPI_X) with |
| 10 |
> > version(EAPI_Y)? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> You pretty much have to have a way of mapping an EAPI version onto an |
| 13 |
> absolute version if you want to handle it sanely. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Right, and that's likely to cause a mess in the long run IMO. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> > > Ditto for naming rules. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > Those are even more of an issue, as they apply before we know the |
| 20 |
> > eventual EAPI (need to access the category/package directory before |
| 21 |
> > you can parse the ebuild filename) |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Mmm, no. You have some concept of a superset of all supported naming |
| 24 |
> rules, then refine once you've extracted the EAPI. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Assuming the current package manager supports all used EAPIs, otherwise |
| 27 |
a formerly invalid name could still break it. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Marius |
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives