| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 22:35:25 -0700 |
| 3 |
> Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> Did anyone already propose specifying this in metadata.xml? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Yup. That's a no-go, since metadata.xml is quite rightly treated as |
| 7 |
> being "not suitable for anything the package manager really needs". |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I think a separate file, especially one that uses a standard XML format, |
| 10 |
would be a fine place for things that the PM needs. Just because we do |
| 11 |
not use it this way now does not mean it is not a good idea. Also, the |
| 12 |
EAPI would be out-of-band and not require sourcing of the bash script to |
| 13 |
determine. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> It also moves the EAPI definition even further away from the ebuild, |
| 16 |
> which makes it even harder to work with. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Harder to work with in what way? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> And, of course, it's not backwards compatible, so it'd still need a |
| 21 |
> file extension change. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I am not convinced of this. As others have stated, portage/PM should be |
| 24 |
upgraded with the new capability well in advance of new EAPIs. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-Joe |
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives