Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild naming policy

[Chris Bainbridge]

On Wednesday 16 April 2003 08:15, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 April 2003 04:43, George Shapovalov wrote:
> > Ok, this is shaping up :).
> >
> > Dave: could you please submit a bug, with a short description of this
> > discussion? Otherwise I am afraid this is going to be easily lost..
>
> I would like to add that I believe the failure option is best. Further
> there is another problem with duplicate packages, that is duplicate
> distfile names. This will not work in the current portage. Maybe portage
> should use some automatic renaming feature in case of duplicates. Automatic
> prefixing of categoryname+packagename to the file should be doable. The
> only thing then is that the file unpacking code should first check for the
> prefixed filename. Using directories in distfiles (and maybe too in
> packages (where every file is in All)) could also solve possible conflicts.
>
> Paul

There are possible name conflicts in /usr/portage/packages/All and 
/usr/portage/distfiles. I found bug 
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16222 which seems to cover it. I 
suggest that packages are stored in /usr/portage/hashes/ and given the file 
name of the hash value. This ensures uniqueness in the "all files" directory. 
/usr/portage/packages/All can then be removed and symlinks can point directly 
to the hashes directory. /usr/portage/distfiles can follow the same 
convention as packages so we have eg. 
/usr/portage/distfiles/dev-lang/package-x.y.z-r1/ as the base directory for 
files, with symlinks inside pointing to the unique files used by that 
package. 

I don't like the idea of modifying ebuilds. The ebuild writer has to check 
that every filename they download is unique, and every package has to be 
unique. Arbitrary renaming of packages causes more problems, when I wrote the 
medusa ebuild I noted that theres another medusa in gnome.. We don't want to 
be renaming packages to things like gnome-extra/gnome-medusa or 
dev-python/medusa-framework when we already have a perfectly good package 
hierarchy. 

--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list