Re: [gentoo-dev] Ideas for a (fast) EAPI=3

[Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1463 bytes --]

On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 13:44:55 +0300
Mart Raudsepp <leio@gentoo.org> wrote:
> But the metadata cache isn't per-EAPI in the sense of multiple
> metadata caches, one for each EAPI. There might be per-EAPI metadata
> cache items though.

The cache format is per-EAPI, with a degree of overlap.

> I don't think I want to have to specify userland_GNU and co in IUSE.
> They aren't USE flags that get set by the user, so having to put them
> in IUSE isn't intuitive either.

And with the proposal as currently worded, you don't have to. The
profiles do that magically for you.

> Some might accept all current switches we pass with econf, but not
> --disable-dependency-tracking.

'might'? Have you found any? Given the mess econf currently passes, it
strikes me as highly unlikely.

> Then we should disallow all constructs that currently give a repoman
> warning as well?

We should disallow constructs that can't be used correctly, if allowing
them is a significant burden on the package manager.

> Unknown types in this case is about "not packed at all".
> Or we could define those types - .patch, .bin, etc
> PM knows that there's .lzma, .xz and so on, so it could know which
> build-time deps are necessary - repoman warning anyhow, later some
> alternative unpacker might surface.

Uh. Unknown types doesn't mean "fail on lzma if lzma's not installed".
Please check the PMS draft for what it does mean.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]