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----- |