On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 01:19:46 -0800 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 08:29 Thu 20 Dec , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:38:01 -0800 > > Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Here's some other ideas for how to express EAPI. What if we: > > > > > > Used EAPI-named subdirectories instead of tagging it into the > > > filename? > > > > Performance hit, and otherwise equivalent to using suffixes. > > Not quite so ugly-looking to my eyes.
It makes it quite a bit harder for developers to find the ebuild... > > > Used (and required) filesystem extended attributes? > > > > Unportable, unsyncable and unmaintainable. > > Unportable to filesystems that don't support extended attributes > isn't very interesting to me, unless they're common. Out of > curiosity, do you know which ones that would be? Looking at my kernel > config, ext3 and reiser explicitly support xattrs, and I see jfs and > xfs have acls and security labels, which might be usable. Unsyncable > would be a problem, so it's a good thing rsync has USE=xattr That's an awful lot of requirements you're imposing upon people... > do the difficulties come in on the CVS side? Version control systems don't tend to do anything beyond very basic permission related things... Getting the executable bit right is about the best you can hope for. > Why do you say unmaintainable? Because they're almost entirely invisible. > > > Stuck ranges into metadata.xml for which EAPIs applied? > > > > No package manager required information can be in XML format. > > Says who? Us. We can change that, if we decide it's the best answer. > =) Say the Portage people for the past lots of years. (The reason, primarily, used to be that it used to be a dep upon a .so that could get broken. A better reason is that parsing XML is frickin' slow.) -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
