| 1 |
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 11:51 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Dnia 2015-05-16, o godz. 04:31:14 |
| 3 |
> Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 1:19 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>> > 4. Repositories need to conform to at least basic rules enforced by the PMS or the common subset of features supported by Portage, pkgcore and Paludis. |
| 7 |
>> > |
| 8 |
>> > Rationale: we don't want things to blow up hard in users' faces when they happen to add some repository. Alternatively, we need to mark non-PMS repositories as such. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> I think PMS conformance needs to be optional here. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> There are some very prominent overlays in repositories.xml which |
| 13 |
>> already do not conform to PMS. The kde overlay comes to mind. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/kde.git/tree/metadata/layout.conf#n29 |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Then we need a proper marking to mark the repositories for users of |
| 18 |
> other PMs appropriately. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Seems like a simple solution would be to tag every repository with a |
| 22 |
list of all the EAPIs it utilizes. Repositories could use non-PMS |
| 23 |
EAPIs, but should declare them. The general principles of PMS should |
| 24 |
apply to everything (ie don't put EAPI=5 in your ebuild and then do |
| 25 |
something undefined in EAPI5 - if you're going to make up your own |
| 26 |
EAPI give it a unique name). |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
We could also use a special keyword of some kind that denotes that the |
| 29 |
repository complies with gentoo repository QA, whatever that happens |
| 30 |
to mean at the moment. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Rich |
Archives