Hi again,
What's the idea behind the 'flavor' configuration keyword in pungi (using lattest tip). On inspecition, It seems to be appended to the version number and used to create directory paths. I guess I just want to know the "why" behind it :), or more like, the domain equivalence... basically... what the heck is a flavor :)
cheers, Essien
On Monday 12 February 2007 07:38, Essien Ita Essien wrote:
What's the idea behind the 'flavor' configuration keyword in pungi (using lattest tip). On inspecition, It seems to be appended to the version number and used to create directory paths. I guess I just want to know the "why" behind it :), or more like, the domain equivalence... basically... what the heck is a flavor :)
With Fedora 7, we're introducing a targetted spin idea, that is a compose of the packages for a particular target, like Desktop. In order to signify what target a given spin is for, I introduced the flavor argument, which as you noted, will append the flavor to the path. This way you can have the same topdir but with many different flavors. It is purely optional though, if no flavor is specified, it will not be used.
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Monday 12 February 2007 07:38, Essien Ita Essien wrote:
What's the idea behind the 'flavor' configuration keyword in pungi (using lattest tip). On inspecition, It seems to be appended to the version number and used to create directory paths. I guess I just want to know the "why" behind it :), or more like, the domain equivalence... basically... what the heck is a flavor :)
With Fedora 7, we're introducing a targetted spin idea, that is a compose of the packages for a particular target, like Desktop. In order to signify what target a given spin is for, I introduced the flavor argument, which as you noted, will append the flavor to the path. This way you can have the same topdir but with many different flavors. It is purely optional though, if no flavor is specified, it will not be used.
ahh... i c. thanks for the explanation... makes perfect sense.
btw, if flavor is not specified, a lot of portions break, i'll investigate better and send a patch.
-- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
On Monday 12 February 2007 11:10, Essien Ita Essien wrote:
btw, if flavor is not specified, a lot of portions break, i'll investigate better and send a patch.
Really? Hrm, I thought I tested that functionality. That was my intent rather, that if flavor wasn't specified that it would be "", and thus os.path.join calls would just work.
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Monday 12 February 2007 11:10, Essien Ita Essien wrote:
btw, if flavor is not specified, a lot of portions break, i'll investigate better and send a patch.
Really? Hrm, I thought I tested that functionality. That was my intent rather, that if flavor wasn't specified that it would be "", and thus os.path.join calls would just work.
please ignore, i got the result with the *wrong* patch that i sent earlier... the proper patch against mercurial tip doesn't give this problem. my bad.
-- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
buildsys@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Essien Ita Essien -
Jesse Keating