On 08/31/14 11:13, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 11:08:27 -0400
"Anthony G. Basile" <bluen...@gentoo.org> wrote:
On 08/31/14 11:02, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 10:56:21 -0400
"Anthony G. Basile" <bluen...@gentoo.org> wrote:
I'd give you a link to git.gentoo.org/proj/elfix as a concrete
example, but the site is still down.
Are you emulating all the workarounds for reading previously-written
invalid data in there? Because if not, you're reading what you want
VDB to contain, not what it actually does...
Remember, VDB's format isn't specified anywhere, so if you claim you
can read it, you must be able to read whatever it contains, and you
can't claim that (for example) rogue 'stat' entries in CONTENTS are
a bug.
I'm reading portage's code.
Which version? Note that Portage can't read the VDB entries generated
by certain other Portage versions.'
Then you version the VDB cache and you write your API as an abstraction
layer to take care of that.
I do not understand why you oppose the standardization of VDB?
If you would like to standardise VDB, I suggest you start by doing a
decent job of solving that problem, and not just jumping in and yelling
about how important it is that some particular file is in there.
I will take this into account when I write the next version of the GLEP.
--
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail : bluen...@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA
