On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 23:29:00 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Incorrect. There needs to be no GLEP regarding multiple repository | support in portage. There may need to be a GLEP regarding splitting | up the portage tree into separate repositories, but that is nothing | to do with the issue I'm talking about.
Sure. You could go ahead and implement it without a GLEP in the really really bad way you're proposing currently. Or you could take the GLEP route and let other developers help you come up with a design that doesn't royally suck. | Again, why I really don't like this design. You're asking portage to | do crap to support external tools without looking to provide | compatibilty with future portages. How are you planning to find the | metadata directory in the first place? Not at all. There's an "it will probably be handled like this" note in the GLEP. I can't get any more detailed than that until there's a proper specification for what Portage is going to do in the future. | > | Nope, which is why news.read shouldn't be specified. | > | > news.read is specified because there was demand for it the last time | > around. It's staying specified because the reasons given were based | > upon convincing use cases rather than random speculation. | | Can you show a use case that crosses several readers? Look back to the original thread. -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain) Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
