On Saturday 20 May 2006 19:45, Marius Mauch wrote: > On Sat, 20 May 2006 15:41:37 +0100 > > Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The primary package manager is the package manager that sets the > > > standards for the tree. All ebuilds in the tree must function > > > with the primary package manager. As the primary package manager > > > sets the standard it does not have to maintain compatibility with > > > other package managers. > > > > The current 'Portage defines the tree format' is IMO a cause of a lot > > of problems at the moment. It would be better, I think, to define in a > > package-manager-agnostic document just what the current ebuild format > > (EAPI 0) means. If at any point in the future the primary package > > manager changes in what it supports and/or requires, a new EAPI spec > > is written. The council, or some other body, can then define which > > EAPI formats may be used by ebuilds in the tree. > > Full ACK on this one, though EAPI itself is insufficient, it would only > define the ebuild format, but you also have to look at the repo itself > (see past -portage-dev discussions about this), e.g. for the Manifest > or profile formats. > It's not that easy to conform to a spec that doesn't really exist > (unless you consider the implementation as spec).
I have no problem with this. In principle it is unavoidable that a package manager deviates in certain points with the actual standard. This is already true for portage. While there is no formal standard, a partial description can be found in the various authoring guides. The point of the part in the glep is more to say that the maintainers of the primary package manager have control over the format. I will add text to this effect to the GLEP. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgpnVVa4IO6v7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
