| 1 |
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 3 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Hi everyone, |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Please consider a new "eapi" profile configuration file that will |
| 8 |
> designate the EAPI to which any package atoms within a given layer |
| 9 |
> of the profile stack must conform. This will allow package managers |
| 10 |
> to bail out with an informative error message if the user |
| 11 |
> accidentally selects a profile containing an EAPI that is not |
| 12 |
> supported by the currently installed package manager. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Long Long Ago there was a conversation about versioning profiles; is |
| 15 |
there some reason why you prefer the eapi method (which arguably has a |
| 16 |
smaller scope) over full profile api versioning (PAPI?) |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Arguably we could use both in the future as well. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> In order to allow mixed EAPIs in the profiles, and to avoid having |
| 22 |
> to configure the EAPI in every single layer, each directory of the |
| 23 |
> profile stack should be able to either override or inherit the EAPI |
| 24 |
> value that may have been defined in a previous layer of the profile |
| 25 |
> stack. If no EAPI has been previously defined then it can be assumed |
| 26 |
> to be 0. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> The format of the configuration file can be very simple, containing |
| 29 |
> only the EAPI value and nothing more. For example, a file containing |
| 30 |
> just a single "0" character, followed by a newline, could be |
| 31 |
> created at profiles/base/eapi in order to explicitly declare that |
| 32 |
> atoms in the base profile conform to EAPI 0. However, this |
| 33 |
> particular declaration would be redundant since the base profile |
| 34 |
> does not inherit from any other profile and therefore it's EAPI |
| 35 |
> would be assumed to be 0 anyway. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> Does this seem like a good approach? Are there any suggestions for |
| 38 |
> improvements or alternative approaches? |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
PAPI :) |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> - -- |
| 43 |
> Thanks, |
| 44 |
> Zac |
| 45 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 46 |
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> iEYEARECAAYFAkjmtEYACgkQ/ejvha5XGaNtSQCfXb2OQAYCEAe0Uuuu7Ou+DxyV |
| 49 |
> QZsAn0VpUbKqHJP0XRZSg6mhFKeUNXui |
| 50 |
> =qR8c |
| 51 |
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> |
Archives