On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:51:05 -0800 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Transitioning from single news.unread to N is going to break clients | that expect a single.
Yup. | As I said, you're going to break stuff- and you're building it into | your glep out of (aparent) stubborness. No no. I'm just not adding something ill defined and arbitrary to the GLEP to avoid introducing minor possible breakage when some ill defined and arbitrary change is made to Portage. | What do you want, another glep amending yours with that one little | detail? Probably won't be necessary... | The news glep crosses several groups, collaboration here is required, | meaning *listen* to the folk you're trying to command. Otherwise the | glep *will* go nowhere no matter how much noise you make. And I'm asking you to provide me with a specification of how multiple repositories will work. Without that, there's no way the GLEP can be made to handle multiple repositories. | > | If you're going to create and dump a mess on us, I expect it to | > | be in the proposal- especially since your proposal is | > | intrinsically portage bound. | > | > There's very little that's Portage bound. As originally requested, | > I've tried to keep as much as is reasonably possible *out* of | > Portage... | | It's distributed via the portage tree, it's updated by portage, the | check for new news items is *via* portage, and check for news items | prior to merging is done by portage. | | If that truly was your intention, you failed in it.. It's bound to | portage, despite the rhetoric. No no. A Portage bound solution would stick all the code and clients in Portage proper, rather than using Portage merely for hooks as far as is reasonably possible. | Word games suck, instead of playing them you *should* be trying to | address the concerns- iow, what do you *explicitly* need from | portage, What explicitly I need, *if* the GLEP is to specify multiple repository support from the outset, is a specification of how Portage will handle multiple repositories conceptually and a description of the interface that will be provided by Portage. | > Especially since you've said "we're not doing it the way you think | > it should work"... | | Where have I stated that? My statements thus far about multi repo | were in reference to a glep that missed the target. | | Provide quotes please, or get back to nailing down exactly what you | need portageq wise so we can state "do it this way, and we'll shut | up". I'm thinking mainly about "Portage externally will use user defined" in relation to repository identification. Any specification on multiple repositories that comes from me will have said identifiers being repository designed, simply because I can't see a sane way of handling it otherwise. | You want us to nail everything down for our request, I'd like you to | do the same (especially since we're stuck maintaining whatever you | propose/create). I can't nail down details on multiple repository support until I'm told what Portage will do. Give me a specification for what Portage will do and I'll quite happily make the GLEP work with it. -- 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
