Summary: | [Future EAPI] Allow dots in USE flag names | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Hosted Projects | Reporter: | Petteri Räty (RETIRED) <betelgeuse> |
Component: | PMS/EAPI | Assignee: | PMS/EAPI <pms> |
Status: | RESOLVED WONTFIX | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | esigra, pacho, python |
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | All | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Bug Depends on: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 174380, 349021 |
Description
Petteri Räty (RETIRED)
2010-03-28 16:29:26 UTC
(In reply to comment #0) > Current situation seems to be that Portage acceps them but repoman doesn't: It think repoman is just complaining that there's no description in metadata.xml. Anyway, an EAPI bump for that isn't a bad idea. (In reply to comment #1) > (In reply to comment #0) > > Current situation seems to be that Portage acceps them but repoman doesn't: > > It think repoman is just complaining that there's no description in > metadata.xml. Anyway, an EAPI bump for that isn't a bad idea. I'd be a bit curious how folk plan on dealing w/ parsing metadata.xml (which is eapi unversioned), while varying the EAPI rules for USE parsing of local entries w/in there... (In reply to comment #2) > > I'd be a bit curious how folk plan on dealing w/ parsing metadata.xml (which is > eapi unversioned), while varying the EAPI rules for USE parsing of local > entries w/in there... > Parsing metadata.xml strictly even now is a bad option as they DTD changes every once in a while. (In reply to comment #3) > Parsing metadata.xml strictly even now is a bad option as they DTD changes > every once in a while. Someone might want to point that out since we moved our use local descriptions into metadata.xml ;) Regardless, dtd changes, sure, but for any PM that does validation of the USE flags that come out of the spec, my point still stands. (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > Parsing metadata.xml strictly even now is a bad option as they DTD changes > > every once in a while. > > Someone might want to point that out since we moved our use local descriptions > into metadata.xml ;) > Yeah we could think about coming up with a solution to the metadata.xml problem as a dependency to this one. (In reply to comment #5) > Yeah we could think about coming up with a solution to the metadata.xml problem > as a dependency to this one. Just noting it on the ticket from the irc discussion, profiles/use.desc has the exact same issue... Might be time to revisit adding a repository version format file (would also be a way to address portage enabling package.mask as a directory for profiles cleanly). No progress. Closing. |