On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:07:21 +0100 Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's illegal, according to PMS. It also won't work with Paludis, > > since phase function definitions aren't made available until just > > before that phase executes (there is a reason for this -- it > > provides us with a way of identifying whether a package has a > > particular phase or not). > > > That seems a bit implementation-specific; how one alternative package > manager generates that metadata isn't important (though it does seem > odd that you think it has to be done at that point) nor should it get > in the way.
The whole point of PMS is that it provides a way to avoid relying upon implementation specific things. There are currently no packages that rely upon calling phase functions in the wrong place, and there are good reasons a package manager might want to avoid implementing things in a way such that doing so is legal, so we don't allow it. Also, I don't think it has to be done at that point. I think it's convenient to do it at that point, and when combined with several other reasons doing it that way is the best option. Strange how you repeatedly seem to pop up in favour of doing whatever you think will cause most inconvenience to Paludis, though... -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
