Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: GLEP 49 - Package manager requirements

[Paul de Vrieze]

On Saturday 20 May 2006 19:45, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Sat, 20 May 2006 15:41:37 +0100
>
> Stephen Bennett <spb@g.o> wrote:
> > > The primary package  manager is the package manager that  sets the
> > > standards for the  tree. All  ebuilds  in the  tree  must function
> > > with  the primary  package manager. As  the primary package manager
> > > sets  the standard it does  not have to maintain compatibility with
> > > other package managers.
> >
> > The current 'Portage defines the tree format' is IMO a cause of a lot
> > of problems at the moment. It would be better, I think, to define in a
> > package-manager-agnostic document just what the current ebuild format
> > (EAPI 0) means. If at any point in the future the primary package
> > manager changes in what it supports and/or requires, a new EAPI spec
> > is written. The council, or some other body, can then define which
> > EAPI formats may be used by ebuilds in the tree.
>
> Full ACK on this one, though EAPI itself is insufficient, it would only
> define the ebuild format, but you also have to look at the repo itself
> (see past -portage-dev discussions about this), e.g. for the Manifest
> or profile formats.
> It's not that easy to conform to a spec that doesn't really exist
> (unless you consider the implementation as spec).

I have no problem with this. In principle it is unavoidable that a package 
manager deviates in certain points with the actual standard. This is already 
true for portage. While there is no formal standard, a partial description 
can be found in the various authoring guides. The point of the part in the 
glep is more to say that the maintainers of the primary package manager have 
control over the format. I will add text to this effect to the GLEP.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@g.o
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net