| 1 |
Anthony G. Basile: |
| 2 |
> On 09/07/14 22:36, Patrick Lauer wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Saturday 06 September 2014 16:22:46 hasufell wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Anthony G. Basile: |
| 5 |
>>>> On 09/06/14 12:12, hasufell wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>>> Anthony G. Basile: |
| 7 |
>>>>>>> And when you do ask, is a package that's "provided" installed, |
| 8 |
>>>>>>> and if |
| 9 |
>>>>>>> so, what's its metadata? |
| 10 |
>>>>>> When the package is installed, that data should have been cached. |
| 11 |
>>>>> Afaik there is nothing "cached" if you put stuff in package.provided. |
| 12 |
>>>>> It's a terrible hack, unless I missed something. |
| 13 |
>>>> I wasn't sure what Ciaran was talking about there. If its hacky, then |
| 14 |
>>>> we certainly don't want to standardize it in the GLEP. |
| 15 |
>>> Well, you have to to define what tools can expect from |
| 16 |
>>> provided/installed packages. |
| 17 |
>>> |
| 18 |
>>> That means either say "you cannot expect anything, because there might |
| 19 |
>>> or might not be metadata" or say "you can expect metadata for any |
| 20 |
>>> provided/installed package" in which case package.provided feature has |
| 21 |
>>> to be removed from portage. |
| 22 |
>> "Provided" means "not managed by the package manager" and thus returning |
| 23 |
>> "empty metadata" for queries is perfectly fine. |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
>> I don't see why this feature would need to be removed ... |
| 26 |
>> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> I will explicitly mention "package.provided" in the GLEP as not |
| 29 |
> returning anything for metadata. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Please don't. This is portage internal stuff and shouldn't be in the spec. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
The important part is whether API users can always expect non-empty |
| 35 |
valid metadata or not. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Is there any good argument for allowing empty metadata except to support |
| 38 |
a broken portage implementation? |
Archives