On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 11:08:27 -0400 "Anthony G. Basile" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/31/14 11:02, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 10:56:21 -0400 > > "Anthony G. Basile" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'd give you a link to git.gentoo.org/proj/elfix as a concrete > >> example, but the site is still down. > > Are you emulating all the workarounds for reading previously-written > > invalid data in there? Because if not, you're reading what you want > > VDB to contain, not what it actually does... > > > > Remember, VDB's format isn't specified anywhere, so if you claim you > > can read it, you must be able to read whatever it contains, and you > > can't claim that (for example) rogue 'stat' entries in CONTENTS are > > a bug. > > > I'm reading portage's code.
Which version? Note that Portage can't read the VDB entries generated by certain other Portage versions. > I do not understand why you oppose the standardization of VDB? If you would like to standardise VDB, I suggest you start by doing a decent job of solving that problem, and not just jumping in and yelling about how important it is that some particular file is in there. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
