From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1Er4V9-0003ub-L8 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 02:23:48 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jBR2MX7b026587; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 02:22:33 GMT Received: from cubert.e-centre.net (morbo.e-centre.net [66.154.82.3]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jBR2JYfA028889 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 02:19:34 GMT Received: from [10.3.1.19] (helo=barracuda2.stayonline.net) by cubert.e-centre.net with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Er4R4-0002jn-2d for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 21:19:34 -0500 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1135649973-26210-357-0 X-Barracuda-URL: http://10.3.1.19:8000/cgi-bin/mark.cgi Received: from et-pdx-2.site.stayonline.net (unknown [65.200.64.131]) by barracuda2.stayonline.net (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id AF8ACBEE93 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 21:19:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from nightcrawler ([172.16.1.202]) by et-pdx-2.site.stayonline.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id jBR2JL5j013468 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 02:19:21 GMT Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 18:19:32 -0800 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: [gentoo-dev] Multiple Repo Support Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Multiple Repo Support Message-ID: <20051227021931.GI5809@nightcrawler.e-centre.net> References: <43A235AD.6030604@leetworks.com> <20051227011753.GD5809@nightcrawler.e-centre.net> <20051227012314.5bcfe242@snowdrop.home> <200512270308.00829.carlo@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="RwGu8mu1E+uYXPWP" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200512270308.00829.carlo@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Virus-Scanned: by Barracuda Spam Firewall at stayonline.net X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=4.0 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.02, rules version 3.0.6644 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- X-Archives-Salt: dd24a6fb-3bea-4b4e-ba0d-59229421d1ef X-Archives-Hash: fd4ac431b1db439e5c5e895c5d6948e1 --RwGu8mu1E+uYXPWP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 03:07:52AM +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote: > On Tuesday 27 December 2005 02:23, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Nooo! That's exactly the point I was making. Carsten is assuming that > > by using [slot:bar] syntax, no backwards incompatibility will be > > introduced by adding a new [fish:] key. >=20 > Nooo! ;) I said it would look more consistent, than always adding a new w= ay=20 > (=C2=A7$%&=E2=82=AC<> or so) to describe or latest enhanced dependency at= om. Either way, it's going to require depset extension, and an EAPI bump. I'd rather deal with it as it comes rather then trying to jam=20 everything into it now. EAPI allows us to do whatever we want once=20 portage aware versions are deployed- I'd rather abuse that then make a=20 mess of use/slot for syntax I personally dislike. :) ~harring --RwGu8mu1E+uYXPWP Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDsKSzvdBxRoA3VU0RAg9SAJ47K0oxBB6Cn6j2jm7NhIalrQg8gQCg5MrK Ix65+ljIRNSz0UFCSJ/g9Mg= =UpVz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --RwGu8mu1E+uYXPWP-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list