Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Avuton Olrich <avuton@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New RESTRICT=live value for identification of live ebuilds?
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 00:07:45
Message-Id: 3aa654a40808021707u7359294x35929c1ea1f7f55e@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New RESTRICT=live value for identification of live ebuilds? by Zac Medico
1 On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:
2 > This new RESTRICT=live value would be useful in at least a couple of
3 > ways. One is that it could be used to implement a @live-rebuild
4 > package set that's based on RESTRICT instead of INHERITED [1]. It
5 > could also be used to implement a more accurate LIVEVCS.stable check
6 > in repoman, again based on RESTRICT instead of INHERITED [2].
7 >
8 > We already have plans for more advanced live ebuild support,
9 > including live update detection, that will involve an EAPI bump [3].
10 > However, the RESTRICT=live value is a simple enhancement that we can
11 > add now, without the need for an EAPI bump. Thoughts?
12
13 For some of us in the peanut gallery it'd also be nice to document the
14 pitfalls of grepping inherited to determine if it's a live ebuild
15 (update-live-ebuilds has done it for years, fairly successfully..).
16 Granted it's not clean, and yes, as a secondary check you may need to
17 check for SVN_REPO_URI or else. This is also acting like people are
18 going to follow this convention, which even in a perfect world means
19 people will tend to forget this or not even know they're supposed to
20 put it.
21 --
22 avuton
23 --
24 "I've got a fever. And the only prescription is more cowbell." --
25 Christopher Walken

Replies