Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Cc: Sebastian Luther <SebastianLuther@×××.de>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] layout.conf: What's our opinion?
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 03:26:59
In Reply to: [gentoo-portage-dev] layout.conf: What's our opinion? by Sebastian Luther
1 On Monday 20 January 2014 06:05:30 Sebastian Luther wrote:
2 > Currently layout.conf is not under PMS control. This basically means
3 > that every PM (or version thereof) may support different keys and assign
4 > different meanings to them. Portage's behavior for unknown keys in
5 > layout.conf is to ignore them without a warning.
7 which is correct
9 > The bad thing about this is that some layout.conf keys portage currently
10 > supports, may render the repository unusable for a PM if it doesn't
11 > support them.
13 i don't see that as a problem. alternative PMs can ignore unknown keys, or
14 they can implement support for the new keys, or the repo owner can avoid keys
15 that don't work across all the ones they want to support.
17 > To avoid this type of breakage in other areas (ebuilds, dependency
18 > resolution, ...) PMS has been created. Since the council demands PMS to
19 > be followed, I would expect that they also want the general idea "of not
20 > breaking things randomly" to be followed.
22 as you said, layout.conf isn't in PMS which means this rule does not apply.
24 > Basically it's either
25 > 1) "We add things as we see fit." or
26 > 2) "We should only add things if absolutely necessary.".
28 [1]. if you want things to be stricter, then you can lobby on the lists for
29 standardizing layout.conf in PMS.
31 that said, i don't think layout.conf is "open season". all user visible
32 additions should be reviewed with an eye towards "is this the best we can
33 reasonably do".
34 -mike


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