[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: build profile syntax ideas

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> Raphael, your argument is very convincing and I am now even more in favour of
> Ian's proposal, thanks! Can you list some of those other use cases you said you
> can imagine? Maybe that helps to better decide upon the following:

I gave two already. I don't have any other in mind right now.

> [...] qualifier and is also a bit shorter (but also more irregular).
> Incidentally, the second option was also chosen by Raphael for his
> "if-installed" example above, so maybe the second option is the more intuitive
> one?

I find it more intuitive, yes.

> Since this topic is much about being future proof, I also thought about the
> choice of the ":" (colon) character to separate the scope from the value in
> each label like: "<scope>:<value>". If the colon is used for this purpose, then
> it will be hard to depend upon a binary package that was built with a certain
> build profile. Currently, the way to depend upon a binary package of a certain
> architecture is by using "<packagename>:<architecture>". Using this syntax, the
> natural way of depending on a binary package that was built with a certain
> profile would be "<packagename>:<profile:stage1>" but there is the problem with
> those multiple colons. So maybe another character should be used to separate
> scopes from values? Like the dot: "<scope>.<value>". Is this a valid concern?

Or maybe you can use <packagename>:profile=<profilename>. The colon seems
like a natural prefix/field separator.

Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook:
→ http://debian-handbook.info/get/

Reply to: