Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Overlays and Metadata Cache
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:16:02
Message-Id: 4A3D2767.20606@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Overlays and Metadata Cache by Patrick Lauer
1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
2 Hash: SHA1
3
4 Patrick Lauer wrote:
5 > The only issue I have found with this idea relates to eclasses - overriding
6 > in-tree eclasses to be precise. The problem there is that it invalidates in-
7 > tree metadata and potentially affects other overlays too. So that's a bit of a
8 > bummer, but then I wonder how common that case is.
9
10 It seems like it should only be a problem for people who use
11 eclass-overrides in /etc/portage/repos.conf [1] (this is not
12 default). People who do that are on their own anyway, because that's
13 what triggers bug #124041 [2].
14
15 In the absence of eclass-overrides in /etc/portage/repos.conf,
16 everything should be fine. Any eclasses that are intended to be
17 shared between repos can be configured by those repos via
18 layout.conf [3]. This allows for consistent distribution of metadata
19 cache, which also allows for consistent repoman results as discussed
20 in the "QA Overlay Layout support" thread [4].
21
22 [1]
23 http://dev.gentoo.org/~zmedico/portage/doc/man/portage.5.html#repos.conf
24 [2] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=124041
25 [3] http://blogs.gentoo.org/zmedico/2009/04/20/overlay_layout_conf
26 [4]
27 http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_33c61550b4ed2b7b25dd5a4110e1ec81.xml
28
29 - --
30 Thanks,
31 Zac
32 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
33 Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
34
35 iEYEARECAAYFAko9J2YACgkQ/ejvha5XGaPIaQCgq4fCUtdsusIMEjtS6XbXYPzb
36 ZKoAn3SWop6OFLJQNm+9ZOcwyLM9dehE
37 =hqgh
38 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----