On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 09:51:58 -0400 "Anthony G. Basile" <bluen...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > Paludis doesn't do this (and historically, Portage didn't either). > > We store USE etc. This is useful because it allows us to detect when > > people have been mucking around with DEPEND and the like. > > This was a suggestion from mgorny and I trust his opinion on the > matter. It does make sense to have metadata catche which is > conditionally evaluated be exported.
Well what are you planning to use it for? Are you really suggesting that people are going to implement EAPI-aware, compliant dependency parsers that can't figure out conditionals? > 1) This cannot be utterly arbitrary because there are utilities and > portions of portages code which does make use of precisely this > information. What Portage does internally is up to Portage. What we don't want is to encourage external utilities that are utterly inflexible and that make strange assumptions. > 2) With the exception of some embedded systems where everything is > statically linked, all modern systems have dynamic linking. And all > dynamic linking has information in its objects which associates the > executables with the library they link against. This is the > essential information to be stored. Which isn't what you're asking for... You're asking for it in a particular format. > 6) Without a standard here, we have utilites which make use of this > cached information in the tree which only work with portage but not > paludis. This problem can be solved by removing those utilities, > which is undesireable, by standardizing what needs to be exported > from the PM, or by living with the status quo which is having useful > packages in the tree which don't work with paludis. The solution is to replace those utilities with something that works in proper generality. > > You've also not discussed how this interacts with Portage's > > package.provided misfeature. > > > > Finally, you don't have any way of using this information, since you > > don't have a way of knowing what packages are installed. > > I don't understand your reasoning behind these points, can you please > explain. Well you can't ask for information about packages unless you know what's installed, and you haven't asked for a general API for that. And when you do ask, is a package that's "provided" installed, and if so, what's its metadata? -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
