-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:56:18 -0800 > Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> If the package manager is not able to validate a cache entry that >> has been generated for an unsupported EAPI, then it will be forced >> to regenerate the metadata in order to check whether or not the EAPI >> has changed (example given 2 emails ago). Don't you agree that it >> would be useful to be able to avoid metadata generation in cases >> like this, if possible? > > Well... The solution you give only *sometimes* avoids it, so it's only > worth it if we expect that most EAPI changes won't mess around with > inheriting at all. And given that we probably want per-cat/pkg > eclasses...
Well, I think it's more like "the vast majority of the time" than just "sometimes", and it's a lot better than "never". > It only comes into its own if you expect there to be a long time > between an EAPI being used in the tree and an EAPI being supported by a > package manager. And even then, it's probably easier to just do a minor > stable release straight away with rules for "don't know how to use this > EAPI, but do know how to read metadata cache entries for it" whilst > keeping new EAPI support for the next major release. But how will it know if it supports those cache entries? Wouldn't the easiest way to determine that be to have a DIGESTS version identifier? Otherwise, the only way for it to know would be to parse it and either throw a parse error if necessary or proceed all the way to the digest verification step (if it doesn't hit a parse error first). > Honestly, I don't think it'll be useful often enough that it's worth > the added ick. Doesn't a simple version identifier seem less icky than checking for both a parse error and digest verification failure? - -- Thanks, Zac -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkmYt+oACgkQ/ejvha5XGaOC6gCgzgIcH6D7X/o/vOuWvsS0mp42 dGsAn17xnY8bX9IG28Uj3MX42qdrxGrL =+Hkp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
