From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1SP9Eq-0004Y1-Hc for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 01 May 2012 09:19:16 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 34B81E0776; Tue, 1 May 2012 09:18:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wg0-f53.google.com (mail-wg0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D00F1E0776 for ; Tue, 1 May 2012 09:18:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wgbfm10 with SMTP id fm10so1449243wgb.10 for ; Tue, 01 May 2012 02:18:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; bh=kZucD699r/POZm9Q8avJLqrl3BWKi7TI+hqkbnH8f94=; b=HjnxFh8BO75amsDtAyQSr8SVfB9ezeX2CEpWS09vYs0GrP+z33HHxz18a+EwxL4M1a QNgtfcPRqd4QmjiAvxAk8G5/dzUPWOAPqb9UaNsprYYGk8wjf4f3lL3R/StpKcBhmiTi KRqAtyqhgaWLFX8eouy1GnZHpSvWDovSATsHkAz9m1/5T3PI2t84eDALImpuyq5eF+wK df3A4ngZLw2xPNrHupbZKuKnpj3pbvpL4ZtBW6OflVEJyxJykFF8TJS+jWAxqEn+6XdE LjGqhRkKdts1YCN2ghGIiK7McNUNlimfpjZ8JAVAEyf1Saug8oIjcRBNjjrEjOZszvig iY4w== Received: by 10.180.101.230 with SMTP id fj6mr3698387wib.13.1335863936861; Tue, 01 May 2012 02:18:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (cpc13-broo7-2-0-cust130.14-2.cable.virginmedia.com. [82.9.16.131]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e6sm34962949wix.8.2012.05.01.02.18.55 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 01 May 2012 02:18:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 10:16:25 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-pms@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] Re: EAPI 5 Message-ID: <20120501101625.2172aeb8@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <201205011101.57611.dilfridge@gentoo.org> References: <20120415021641.1858ffde@gentoo.org> <201205010102.49051.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <20120501093841.655b4ab5@googlemail.com> <201205011101.57611.dilfridge@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.10; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Package Manager Specification discussions X-BeenThere: gentoo-pms@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-pms@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-pms@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/YVq3DxxTZE59rCGQrev3Wgg"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: a975b417-b836-402f-860e-d6ca238ab91f X-Archives-Hash: 6eb3741c0abbbe8cb6e50bdab06ccbcf --Sig_/YVq3DxxTZE59rCGQrev3Wgg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 1 May 2012 11:01:57 +0200 "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: > Am Dienstag 01 Mai 2012, 10:38:41 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh: > > > Well. PMS describes the files in a profile directory. If > > > * we introduce a new file via PMS that was not in there before, > > > * and another package manager accesses that file but expects > > > different information there not corresponding to our new > > > definition, that package manager should be considered broken > > > because it is not adhering to previous PMS revisions. So? > >=20 > > What happens if a user uses an EAPI 4 ebuild with an EAPI 4 package > > manager when the ebuild in question would be hit by your new files, > > which the package manager doesn't know about yet? >=20 > Err, nothing? The useflags remain available and switchable as before, > no difference regarding useflags between stable / not stable? What is the impact of this, then? Does it mean users will start to see lots of "masked" errors that they should not be seeing? --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/YVq3DxxTZE59rCGQrev3Wgg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk+fqe0ACgkQ96zL6DUtXhEOqgCg5cUYu9hv8oNbK4x6wpJwUuoS u4cAoNTwl6afjB71gViA46lj2sph6tOJ =T7yl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/YVq3DxxTZE59rCGQrev3Wgg--