From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Lc6Eu-0007PY-CA for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:59:00 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5CD2EE064B; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:58:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (fg-out-1718.google.com [72.14.220.153]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EE3CE064B for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:58:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id e12so165420fga.14 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:58:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:mime-version :content-type; bh=pfakEcZD+fHPF0YCbcAfDv00x4eGOpdxh2Nbj30V6YE=; b=RKhj18gSF1YgGA8KO83OMhhSS67/oReWddNeL8jDshOujZ6P+sU8JwnltnRIyoHwcH 7twf2N2VQLAQjP9f9QREXyZTN0s9Iy9bygfijfpZcBBUFzWpv5W9JDu430Zjdp9aEefg iP7FSQr3vlNxJn4FA9x772g9l47AJs3tLsF84= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; b=qG9GcbIeYRsQpc9nFGvkkpNb/OlxML2K6GARQrWjcYXKoKOPP8rHla6ecCB6vTCeAW N7rQ31XQUPYHzmfoHTdUisQooQ5pmCHtgmdaekVpurA1FZbBxHqroH2gWxtf7KvPoY4T f4k+wi9Gmh28AmZEW0I5Jz/WOcjoyLDtHUOqA= Received: by 10.86.65.9 with SMTP id n9mr68846fga.61.1235516338285; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:58:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from snowcone (92-235-187-79.cable.ubr18.sgyl.blueyonder.co.uk [92.235.187.79]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p34sm5236474ugc.53.2009.02.24.14.58.57 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:58:57 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:58:50 +0000 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009) Message-ID: <20090224225850.179814b6@snowcone> In-Reply-To: <49A4793B.8030200@gentoo.org> References: <1234257125.18160.2016.camel@localhost> <1234450419.20950.2.camel@localhost> <20090212160045.GB3642@comet> <20090212161644.GD3642@comet> <20090212162103.256b003f@snowcone> <20090212171055.GA3652@comet> <20090212172109.778fb268@snowcone> <20090212173743.GD3652@comet> <20090212180350.0d9a9df5@snowcone> <1235037961.13198.779.camel@localhost> <20090219125124.33eaa66c@snowcone> <1235077892.13198.1923.camel@localhost> <20090222171658.278ae167@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca> <49A1E1CB.1000806@gentoo.org> <20090222234800.29d64b8d@snowcone> <49A206A7.3050604@gentoo.org> <49A39CE7.4010201@gentoo.org> <49A3AAA1.6080207@gentoo.org> <49A3B947.2020907@gentoo.org> <49A3D0F6.6080307@gentoo.org> <49A41656.7020100@gentoo.org> <20090224155654.602f6c88@snowcone> <49A455BD.900@gentoo.org> <20090224202525.01016056@snowcone> <49A46AA9.9050805@gentoo.org> <20090224214850.6689d986@snowcone> <49A4793B.8030200@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.14.7; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/3joHOcuJGm8/2euykBplmKd"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: 9167f5dd-b893-49f6-89f7-4e031264d10c X-Archives-Hash: 8dc1836ea92d6191b56254226e3d1918 --Sig_/3joHOcuJGm8/2euykBplmKd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:48:27 +0100 Luca Barbato wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Not true. You don't know whether the cache is valid until you know > > what the EAPI is. >=20 > If you are on the user scenario the cache is valid. Uh. Wrong. > > Can't use the cache until you know what the EAPI is. >=20 > The current cache holds all the current portage needs to know what to=20 > ignore, providing the cache in such format will make portage ignore > any future change. Uh. Wrong. The information used to validate a cache entry is only usable if you know the behaviour of 'inherit' that was used to create the entry. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/3joHOcuJGm8/2euykBplmKd Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkmke60ACgkQ96zL6DUtXhF8SgCgn9O7uYmylW1K9W4u6Uav6lQg ehEAniPc193Cb6TNoz0U6GMmBuXX7GSB =gyQY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/3joHOcuJGm8/2euykBplmKd--