Re: [gentoo-dev] macos mess

[Pieter Van den Abeele]

On 25 Jul 2004, at 04:50, Jason Stubbs wrote:

> On Sunday 25 July 2004 11:22, Pieter Van den Abeele wrote:
>> On 25 Jul 2004, at 03:26, Jason Stubbs wrote:
>>> The real problem is that nobody (if I am like everybody else) has
>>> heard about this stuff except those that are following the macos
>>> movement.
>>> If you had announced your plan to inject everything in MacOS and
>>> keyword
>>> ebuilds on the assumption that those packages are available, many
>>> people
>>> could have told you that the issues that are happening currently
>>> would
>>> occur. More importantly, solutions would have been able to be created
>>> before the current issues became issues.
>>
>> The MacOS project was announced one year ago. One single portage
>> feature that still isn't implemented held the project up for that
>> long.
>
> Bug #? If there is in fact a bug, it's not marked as a blocker or even
> as
> being critical.

It's a glep. The pathspec glep. 
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/macos-1.xml

I can forward all email I have about to you if you like. Might be 
interesting to read it and get a better idea about it.

>> It's a relatively simple feature compared to the other requirements I
>> have for a next generation portage.
>
> So you're planning to fork the project?

No I'm not. An experimental prototype yes.
Anyway, keep tuned.

>> What MacOS is doing right now is moving forward and identifying all
>> MacOS
>> related issues, creating bug reports for them and we try to do our
>> best
>> finding both long term and short term solutions. We can't afford to
>> be put
>> on hold for another year, unfortunately.
>
> I've been an official developer for just over five months, and have
> been
> working on portage and hanging out in #gentoo-portage and on the
> gentoo-portage-dev list for about nine months yet I haven't heard any
> discussion whatsoever about what is required to support portage on
> macos.
> THAT is what has held it up for a year.

Oh well, macos is here now. Let's start doing things now. Whether or 
not you heard about it before is not really relevant anymore. Most of 
the stuff is happening now.
I've been wanting to throw that pathspec thing away and start all over 
again, cause I wrote a comment on it anyway. (I wasn't really 
flattering about  the ugly code at the bottom of the glep. I dislike 
nested ifs.).

> Yes, repoman is quite buggy. That is no reason to use it as a
> scapegoat.

I've written a patch for it. I think others have been more verbose 
about repoman in this thread. Have nothing against it.

>>>> 2. make repoman macos aware
>>>
>>> s/make repoman macos aware/include support in ALL of portage/
>>
>> That's the plan. There will be code, no worry. But until there's code,
>> we use the cleanest possible short-term solution for various issues.
>
> Again, by forking?

no. We do currently maintain a small patchset to make portage work 
under osx. We are working on making that patchset clean and will submit 
it to you guys in different reviewed bits and pieces.

of course my prototype is osx compatible, but that shouldn't be a 
surprise I think (I hope).

>> When I openened the bug about persistent packages, somebody masked it
>> as a DUP for a bug numbered somewhere between 11000 - 12000 (we're at
>> 54000 right now). I'm assuming similar feature requests have been
>> waiting for some time.
>
> Please give bug numbers. I want the facts first-hand.

My bug was marked as a dup for 
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11697

Best regards,

Pieter Van den Abeele

> Regards,
> Jason Stubbs
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list


--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list