| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> ..and it means we can't change name or version rules. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Why? Just parse the EAPI out of the file before you interpret the |
| 7 |
version and name from the filename. Indeed - you could have a future |
| 8 |
EAPI remove the name and version from the filename entirely. If a |
| 9 |
package manager doesn't understand the EAPI in a file it shouldn't do |
| 10 |
anything at all with it. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> ..and it means over doubling the best possible time to work out a |
| 13 |
> dependency tree in the common case where the metadata cache is valid. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I can see why it takes an extra pass - but does that mean a doubling of |
| 17 |
time? Couldn't the EAPI be cached as well to reduce disk access? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> ..and it means we can't make arbitrary format changes. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Well, you would need to preserve the EAPI in the header, but other than |
| 22 |
that you could actually turn an ebuild into an otherwise completely |
| 23 |
binary file, or whatever. Just how much more flexibility than that is |
| 24 |
needed? |
Archives