On 08:29 Thu 20 Dec , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:38:01 -0800 > Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here's some other ideas for how to express EAPI. What if we: > > > > Used EAPI-named subdirectories instead of tagging it into the > > filename? > > Performance hit, and otherwise equivalent to using suffixes.
Not quite so ugly-looking to my eyes. > > Used (and required) filesystem extended attributes? > > Unportable, unsyncable and unmaintainable. Unportable to filesystems that don't support extended attributes isn't very interesting to me, unless they're common. Out of curiosity, do you know which ones that would be? Looking at my kernel config, ext3 and reiser explicitly support xattrs, and I see jfs and xfs have acls and security labels, which might be usable. Unsyncable would be a problem, so it's a good thing rsync has USE=xattr -- do the difficulties come in on the CVS side? Why do you say unmaintainable? > > Stuck ranges into metadata.xml for which EAPIs applied? > > No package manager required information can be in XML format. Says who? Us. We can change that, if we decide it's the best answer. =) Thanks, Donnie -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
