On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 09:26 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > I'm attaching a reStructuredText version of the spec. You can view it > rendered as a gist[1]. But please keep the replies on the list, rather > than forking the gist.
I don't like the approach taken in 6. I'd rather state that there should not be file collisions between the dynamic slots. We already handle things this way in ruby (with a common 'all' and specific version builds). For 9c I can't see us limiting users to a single ruby implementation by default (the only current exception is www-apache/passenger), so a combined ||() block makes no sense to me. I think it is better to be explicit here and express the real situation with multiple ||() blocks if needed. Finally, I don't expect ruby to use this unless we can ensure that this works with our current ebuilds without changes. I'm fine with supporting some code in the eclass to determine which mechanism to use in which way, but we won't be spending huge amounts of time switching to yet another system. To me the perceived benefits aren't big enough. Kind regards, Hans
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
