On Monday 12 December 2005 09:01, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:44:00 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > | Repositories will be user-labelled. However, all that readers need be > | concerned with is how to extract the repository name from the > | news.unread file and how to then resolve that to a directory name, > | regardless of how repositories are implemented. > > See, this is exactly why I'm not wanting to care about multiple repo > details at this point. There's no specification of how they work and > what exactly they're supposed to do, and to make matters worse the way > you seem to think they'll be handled is a really really bad way of > doing it.
Regardless of what you think about the current plans for multiple repository support, the details that readers will need to know wont change. > | Even before multiple respositories are properly supported, I > | guarantee bugs about support for this in portage overlays. With the > | above, we would be able to add that support. Without it, all we can > | do is put a big CANTFIX. > > Overlay is not the same as multiple repository support. There's no difference as far as readers go. > | In that case, the data should probably not be in /var/lib/portage and > | definitely not specified in the GLEP. It has nothing to do with > | portage (the app) and isn't a requirement on readers. What if a > | reader wants to keep track of what date an item was read on? Or any > | other metadata? A new file would need to be created anyway due to > | format constrainst placed on news.read... > > Hrm. Does the GLEP need to cover how news readers that want to keep > track of whether or not the sysadmin was wearing pants last tuesday > should work too? Nope, which is why news.read shouldn't be specified. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
