1 |
On Tue, 1 May 2012 01:02:48 +0200 |
2 |
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> > Can you enumerate every possible way the files will be used, both in |
4 |
> > terms of syntax and intended effect? |
5 |
> |
6 |
> In the same way as package.use.mask and package.use.force. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> > Can you provide assurances that it |
9 |
> > can't also be (ab)used to do other things not on your list? |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Which list? |
12 |
|
13 |
The "In the same way as package.use.mask and package.use.force." one. |
14 |
|
15 |
> Of course someone will come up with other creative ideas how to |
16 |
> (ab)use it |
17 |
|
18 |
That's a problem. We need to make sure that that can't happen. |
19 |
|
20 |
> > Can you demonstrate that introducing this in an EAPI won't require |
21 |
> > upping profile EAPIs, |
22 |
> |
23 |
> No. Teach me, please. |
24 |
|
25 |
I don't think it's doable... |
26 |
|
27 |
> > and that users whose package mangler doesn't do |
28 |
> > EAPI 5 won't run into problems with it? |
29 |
> |
30 |
> Well. PMS describes the files in a profile directory. If |
31 |
> * we introduce a new file via PMS that was not in there before, |
32 |
> * and another package manager accesses that file but expects |
33 |
> different information there not corresponding to our new definition, |
34 |
> that package manager should be considered broken because it is not |
35 |
> adhering to previous PMS revisions. So? |
36 |
|
37 |
What happens if a user uses an EAPI 4 ebuild with an EAPI 4 package |
38 |
manager when the ebuild in question would be hit by your new files, |
39 |
which the package manager doesn't know about yet? |
40 |
|
41 |
-- |
42 |
Ciaran McCreesh |