On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:25:53 +0200 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > * What generation looks like. > > Mostly implementation detail? Somebody seems to have ideas there and > I like to heard ideas from others as well.
It's not a detail. It's extremely important, and we can't discuss this sanely until we have detailed proposals for this. > > * How to select which ebuilds to trigger generation for. > > I'm fond of sets and I'd extend maint to be feeded to sets other than > world and all. Again, details. > > * When specifically to trigger generation. > > User decision or triggered by sync depending on a FEATURE. Again, details. This one *really* needs to be worked out, since it's getting in the way of discussing other implications. > > * The security implications of the previous point. > > None? Well, generated revision numbers may have to be stored somewhere. Should a normal user be able to force a generation? If not, this means having to generate templates at sync time for every scm package in the tree, which in turn means scanning every ebuild in the tree. > > * What the impact upon upstream servers is, if any. > > Shared with glep 54 GLEP 54 doesn't use upstream scm revision information at all. Are you definitely saying that your proposal will not be tied in to upstream revisions in any way? -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
