Re: [gentoo-council] Comparison of GLEP 54 and 'live ebuild' proposal

[Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org>]

Thomas Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>     Attached is my comparison of the two proposals for live sources.
>     Sorry about getting it out late, I had to get ahold of a number of
>     people to finish writing it up.

I'd be happier if you actually provided it with a better description 
and/or updated drafts along.

The glep54 doesn't state anything about how/where the specific revision 
is stored nor what the live property is and it implicitly 
provides/triggers in the package manager.

The main technical objection could be stated as "does nothing beside 
giving a token to describe infinity for a version component as version 
suffix".

The actual draft for the live templates is present at

http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero/glep/liveebuild.rst

And should cover the concern you raised here beside the following

 > Similar to the above problem is what occurs when a user understandably
 > puts =media-tv/mythtv-0.20_20090301 in package.{use,keywords} and the
 > date changes. Also, what happens if the user
 > =media-tv/mythtv-0.20.live in package.{use,keywords}? Is live expanded
 > that early so it is invalid or is it still valid?

Having =cat/pkg-ver.live in package.{use, keywords} would translate to a 
sort of =cat/pkg-ver* but would be nicer putting directly an isodate to 
restrict better what you want in and what you want out.

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero