iksaif at gentoo
Aug 10, 2012, 1:05 PM
Post #6 of 13
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Jeroen Roovers <jer [at] gentoo> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:03:23 +0200
> Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva [at] gentoo> wrote:
>> Since you are proposing this, a side question is:
>> Why should we write SRC_URI in ebuilds if that info is now available
>> in metadata.xml ? (granted that we might still want to keep
>> over-riding this information in ebuilds)
> 1) The information in metadata.xml is inaccurate, it's a hint. When it
> fails, nothing of value is lost since the ebuild (supposedly) has
> what you want.
> 2) SRC_URI is precise.
> 3) SRC_URI can change over time, and across versions (even with all the
> variables in place).
> 4) Backward compatibility.
> 5) The inversion of your question: Why should we start handling SRC_URI
> outside ebuilds and eclasses? Or, how would that be practical,
> advantageous, an improvement on the current situation.
Right, our proposal is not here to replace SRC_URI, it's here to fix
the cases where SRC_URI can't be sanely used to guess new upstream
versions (strange mangling rules, unbrowsable directories, etc...).