From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-53969-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9900913800E
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 20:07:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8B0A3E067D;
Fri, 10 Aug 2012 20:07:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5772DE05DB
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 20:05:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-qa0-f46.google.com (mail-qa0-f46.google.com [209.85.216.46])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
(Authenticated sender: iksaif)
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BC3E91B406E
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 20:05:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by qafi31 with SMTP id i31so389753qaf.19
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 13:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.179.7 with SMTP id bo7mr9820458qab.15.1344629118897; Fri,
10 Aug 2012 13:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.49.27.35 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 13:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20120810162127.493a455a@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net>
References: <5024EC6C.3070300@anche.no>
<1344600203.17434.3.camel@kanae>
<20120810162127.493a455a@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 22:05:18 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHR064gCA3KKoCikNfLmcF58CUmFev8BcriZVESKVWiH-fEX8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] SRC_URI in metadata.xml
From: Corentin Chary <iksaif@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Archives-Salt: e986eb24-01b0-4669-b40e-99af481d16ac
X-Archives-Hash: 5e6bf3fe3f22e9307fc25fd4d8f6bed1
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:03:23 +0200
> Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> Since you are proposing this, a side question is:
>> Why should we write SRC_URI in ebuilds if that info is now available
>> in metadata.xml ? (granted that we might still want to keep
>> over-riding this information in ebuilds)
>
> 1) The information in metadata.xml is inaccurate, it's a hint. When it
> fails, nothing of value is lost since the ebuild (supposedly) has
> what you want.
> 2) SRC_URI is precise.
> 3) SRC_URI can change over time, and across versions (even with all the
> variables in place).
> 4) Backward compatibility.
> 5) The inversion of your question: Why should we start handling SRC_URI
> outside ebuilds and eclasses? Or, how would that be practical,
> advantageous, an improvement on the current situation.
Right, our proposal is not here to replace SRC_URI, it's here to fix
the cases where SRC_URI can't be sanely used to guess new upstream
versions (strange mangling rules, unbrowsable directories, etc...).
--
Corentin Chary
http://xf.iksaif.net