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 1Lc64l-0005uC-7s for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:48:31 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 25841E05C3; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:48:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03DADE05C3 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:48:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.9] (unknown [151.57.3.153]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29A3264CB1 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:48:26 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <49A4793B.8030200@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:48:27 +0100 From: Luca Barbato User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (X11/20081205) 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 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) 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> In-Reply-To: <20090224214850.6689d986@snowcone> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: bebfdfc9-a315-49eb-9150-b7f40c7f3c43 X-Archives-Hash: d36081ca8450bb02ee9c82b98dbda2fc Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Not true. You don't know whether the cache is valid until you know what > the EAPI is. If you are on the user scenario the cache is valid. If the eapi changes the cache meaning you can always put the new cache in another place older portage won't look into. >> You: >> - have to open them on regen, no matter what (you are adding it to >> portage) >> - the cache entry has already the eapi value so there it is. > > Can't use the cache until you know what the EAPI is. The current cache holds all the current portage needs to know what to ignore, providing the cache in such format will make portage ignore any future change. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo Council Member Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero