1 |
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 09:47:15AM +0000, Thomas Flavel wrote: |
2 |
> Hi, |
3 |
> |
4 |
> I had an idea I dimsmissed which I thought I should post anyway, on the off chance that it |
5 |
> might actually get used ;) |
6 |
> |
7 |
> I was thinking about how /proc is sometimes used as a bi-directional interface, for example I |
8 |
> can "echo 1>/proc/whatever" to turn on ping flood protection or something similar. I was |
9 |
> wondering how practical it would be to have a similar thing for portage? |
10 |
> |
11 |
> If I could say "echo gimp>/proc/portage/install" or "cat /proc/portage/packages" etc then |
12 |
> this would mean that it would be very easy to write front ends for portage, plus with this |
13 |
> minimal interface it would be very nice to use in scripts... I know it would be a massive |
14 |
> kernel module, and probably too much effort to actually produce/maintain but I thought you |
15 |
> should hear the idea... have a think about it please |
16 |
|
17 |
Well, even if we want to implement something like this, it shouldn't go in |
18 |
/proc, and we don't need a kernel patch. It's fully possible to do things like |
19 |
this in user space with directories residing in /var. |
20 |
|
21 |
We do need some kind of robust portage interface, and something like this could |
22 |
work. Specifically, I can think of something like a revamped portage download |
23 |
manager scanning the /var/lib/portage/download directory for new files that it |
24 |
should download. That would also allow the download manager to "double up" on |
25 |
downloads if more than one file needed to be downloaded at the same time. |
26 |
However, the actual build process is more linear, and I don't know if there |
27 |
would be much benefit from this approach besides creating a standardized |
28 |
interface. I'll keep it in mind for the next revision of Portage. |
29 |
|
30 |
Best Regards, |
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
Daniel Robbins <drobbins@g.o> |
34 |
President/CEO http://www.gentoo.org |
35 |
Gentoo Technologies, Inc. |