Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Addition of a new field to metadata.xml

On 01.06.2017 23:18, Jonas Stein wrote: > 2. Specification > > A space separated list of the corresponding debian packages should be > written in the field > > > It should be NONE, if debian has no corresponding package. > UNSET or no field, if the creator of the ebuild did not

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Addition of a new field to metadata.xml

On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 11:40:15 -0400 Alec Warner wrote: > Do we really need to store and distribute this data though? Aggregating this kind of data by cross-referencing multiple providers and then trying discovery against debians equivalents of that, while workable, would be

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Addition of a new field to metadata.xml

On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 3:58 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On sob, 2017-06-03 at 03:22 +1200, Kent Fredric wrote: > > On Fri, 02 Jun 2017 16:51:25 +0200 > > Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > ...so if a Gentoo package is split into 40 packages in Debian, are you > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Addition of a new field to metadata.xml

On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 13:56:52 +0100 Andrey Utkin wrote: > You have searched for packages that names contain libavcodec in > suite(s) stable, all sections, and all architectures. Found 4 > matching packages. Package libavcodec-dev > Package libavcodec-extra > Package

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Addition of a new field to metadata.xml

On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 08:19:32PM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Sat, 03 Jun 2017 09:58:28 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > > > and that's a small one. I guess we could avoid this if you restricted > > those remotes to the source package used to build them all. > > I think in

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Addition of a new field to metadata.xml

On Sat, 03 Jun 2017 09:58:28 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > and that's a small one. I guess we could avoid this if you restricted > those remotes to the source package used to build them all. I think in the event they're a form of conventional foo foo-dev foo-dbg etc,

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Addition of a new field to metadata.xml

On sob, 2017-06-03 at 03:22 +1200, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Fri, 02 Jun 2017 16:51:25 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > > > ...so if a Gentoo package is split into 40 packages in Debian, are you > > going to list all of them? > > If it would be useful to do so, maybe. > > But

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Addition of a new field to metadata.xml

On 06/01/2017 11:59 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 18:36:24 -0700 > Daniel Campbell wrote: > >> +1. Otherwise sounds good. But if we do this for Debian, will there be >> movement to add in package names for rpm-based distros? Arch? BSD? >> Slackware? Where do we

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Addition of a new field to metadata.xml

On Fri, 02 Jun 2017 16:51:25 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > ...so if a Gentoo package is split into 40 packages in Debian, are you > going to list all of them? If it would be useful to do so, maybe. But its a text file, people are capable of making judgements about adding 3.2k

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Addition of a new field to metadata.xml

On sob, 2017-06-03 at 02:38 +1200, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Fri, 02 Jun 2017 14:07:44 +0700 > "Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov" wrote: > > > Shouldn't we mention "debug" USE-flag in this context somehow? > > Not sure it should. Even though one package may be the logical equivalent >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Addition of a new field to metadata.xml

On Fri, 02 Jun 2017 14:07:44 +0700 "Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov" wrote: > Shouldn't we mention "debug" USE-flag in this context somehow? Not sure it should. Even though one package may be the logical equivalent of a handful of debian packages, doesn't mean there's going to be a

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Addition of a new field to metadata.xml

> libfoo-debug Shouldn't we mention "debug" USE-flag in this context somehow?

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Addition of a new field to metadata.xml

On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 18:36:24 -0700 Daniel Campbell wrote: > +1. Otherwise sounds good. But if we do this for Debian, will there be > movement to add in package names for rpm-based distros? Arch? BSD? > Slackware? Where do we draw the line? I'd say "as need be". Here we have a

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Addition of a new field to metadata.xml

>> A space separated list of the corresponding debian packages should be >> written in the field >> > Why space separated? > Its already legal to specify the field multiple times, and it should > work better that way for consistency with things that can already parse > XML. > > That way there's

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Addition of a new field to metadata.xml

On 06/01/2017 06:09 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:18:22 +0200 > Jonas Stein wrote: > >> A space separated list of the corresponding debian packages should be >> written in the field >> > > Why space separated? > > Its already legal to specify the field

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Addition of a new field to metadata.xml

On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:18:22 +0200 Jonas Stein wrote: > A space separated list of the corresponding debian packages should be > written in the field > Why space separated? Its already legal to specify the field multiple times, and it should work better that way for

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] Addition of a new field to metadata.xml

Hello, this RFC is about the addition of a new field to metadata.xml The field should contain a list of the equivalent debian package names, or a defined string for NONE or UNSET. A feature request ticket was prepared here: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=619132 1. Motivation