| 1 |
On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:37:26 -0600 |
| 2 |
Joe Peterson <lavajoe@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Zac Medico wrote: |
| 4 |
> > To simplify things, how about if we just do a |
| 5 |
> > PROPERTIES=live-src-unpack for now, to indicate exclusive access to |
| 6 |
> > $DISTDIR during src_unpack? Thats a simple and portable baseline |
| 7 |
> > that will be quite useful even without anything finer grained. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> No need for a convoluted and long name like 'live-src-unpack'. Why |
| 10 |
> not keep things simple (how about just 'live'?). |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Because 'live' means lots of different things, and is not equivalent to |
| 13 |
"I need exclusive src_unpack execution". |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> You are trying to say it's a 'live' ebuild (i.e. it gets the sources |
| 16 |
> from a live source) - that's all. The locking issues are a technical |
| 17 |
> detail, and there's no need to spell out all aspects of the property |
| 18 |
> in the name; it's just confusing. In fact, you may want to change |
| 19 |
> technical implementation details later, and it would be best not to |
| 20 |
> have left-over details in the name that then would not apply. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
The implications of "x is a live ebuild" are different from the |
| 23 |
implications of "x requires exclusive src_unpack execution". Permitted |
| 24 |
package manager behaviour is different for the two properties. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives