On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:37:26 -0600 Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Zac Medico wrote: > > To simplify things, how about if we just do a > > PROPERTIES=live-src-unpack for now, to indicate exclusive access to > > $DISTDIR during src_unpack? Thats a simple and portable baseline > > that will be quite useful even without anything finer grained. > > No need for a convoluted and long name like 'live-src-unpack'. Why > not keep things simple (how about just 'live'?).
Because 'live' means lots of different things, and is not equivalent to "I need exclusive src_unpack execution". > You are trying to say it's a 'live' ebuild (i.e. it gets the sources > from a live source) - that's all. The locking issues are a technical > detail, and there's no need to spell out all aspects of the property > in the name; it's just confusing. In fact, you may want to change > technical implementation details later, and it would be best not to > have left-over details in the name that then would not apply. The implications of "x is a live ebuild" are different from the implications of "x requires exclusive src_unpack execution". Permitted package manager behaviour is different for the two properties. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
