Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] Re: EAPI 5
Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 08:41:25
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] Re: EAPI 5 by "Andreas K. Huettel"
On Tue, 1 May 2012 01:02:48 +0200
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o> wrote:
> > Can you enumerate every possible way the files will be used, both in > > terms of syntax and intended effect? > > In the same way as package.use.mask and package.use.force. > > > Can you provide assurances that it > > can't also be (ab)used to do other things not on your list? > > Which list?
The "In the same way as package.use.mask and package.use.force." one.
> Of course someone will come up with other creative ideas how to > (ab)use it
That's a problem. We need to make sure that that can't happen.
> > Can you demonstrate that introducing this in an EAPI won't require > > upping profile EAPIs, > > No. Teach me, please.
I don't think it's doable...
> > and that users whose package mangler doesn't do > > EAPI 5 won't run into problems with it? > > Well. PMS describes the files in a profile directory. If > * we introduce a new file via PMS that was not in there before, > * and another package manager accesses that file but expects > different information there not corresponding to our new definition, > that package manager should be considered broken because it is not > adhering to previous PMS revisions. So?
What happens if a user uses an EAPI 4 ebuild with an EAPI 4 package manager when the ebuild in question would be hit by your new files, which the package manager doesn't know about yet? -- Ciaran McCreesh


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-pms] Re: EAPI 5 "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o>