Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] two remarks on portage-2.0.51-r2

[Marius Mauch <genone@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 993 bytes --]

On 10/23/04  Pablo De Napoli wrote:

> 2) emerge ebuild by path
> 
> Acording to the man page, this is broken, however it is the most
> obvious way to specify an ebuild, isn't it?
> 
> Why is this feature broken, could anybody find out?

It never really worked. It did a lookup from the given filename in the
portage tree and converted the filename to a cpv entry (as most portage
functions only deal with cpv entries and not full filenames). This means
that in some situations portage used a different ebuild than you
specified.
It also had several side effects that aren't documented and caused bogus
bugreports.

> I think is very important to keep the quality of portage to the
> highest standards, so I suggest not to realese as stable a version
> with important features broken. 

To keep the quality we added those warnings. These features (I don't
consider them important) were always broken, to fix them we'd have to
re-implement them completely and make several API changes.

Marius

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]