Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-osx
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-osx: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-osx@g.o
From: Kito <kito@g.o>
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC] Separate alt-prefix repo for base-system packages.
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:01:10 -0500
On Aug 29, 2005, at 10:26 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 01:09:49PM +1000, Finn Thain wrote:
>>>
>>> I was looking at it more as a place to develop some new portage
>>> features...Gentoo/Darwin has always been lurking, this is more in  
>>> the
>>> area of just getting offsets working.
>> Excepting that, if you can leverage
>> existing packages, prefixed installs are much more useful -- having a
>> complete set of deps installed on a prefix is not much better than a
>> stage3 chroot with your home directory bind mounted below it.

Maybe so, but we can't have one without the other. First get packages  
to install in a prefix, then work up from there. The issue of  
leveraging existing packages is currently handled by  
package.provided, which we all know doesn't really serve our  
purposes, but I see no reason work couldn't be done in parallel on  
these issues...if you have an ebuild repo  talking to and  
understanding a vendor repo such as apples Receipts or whatever, that  
will work wether the packages get installed in a prefix or not,  
likewise if we have packages that can be installed to an alt-prefix,  
they should work regardless of how portage is resolving the deps.

> The rewrite's general core is intended to allow for alt
> formats/repos/whatever jammed into it; that said, making seperate
> formats play nice with each other (unless they can natively) isn't
> something I think is incredibly easy to pull off, as mentioned above.

Right, this would be a great feature, but I look at this as multi- 
level deps, which should come later IMHO. My goal for having a branch  
of some base packages is to hash out the namespace and all the other  
issues of portage managing a flat set of deps under an offset root.  
Once that is functional, making the offset repo talk to another repo,  
regardless of vendor, host, location, etc could be looked at.

I know that its good to get a solid design before running off and  
writing a bunch of code, but it seems to me the portage rewrite has  
been thought out sufficiently to allow for this type of feature  
expansion in the future, without limiting what we can do right now.

--Kito

-- 
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list


Replies:
Re: Re: [RFC] Separate alt-prefix repo for base-system packages.
-- Lina Pezzella
References:
Re: [RFC] Separate alt-prefix repo for base-system packages.
-- Grobian
Re: [RFC] Separate alt-prefix repo for base-system packages.
-- Finn Thain
Re: Re: [RFC] Separate alt-prefix repo for base-system packages.
-- Kito
Re: Re: [RFC] Separate alt-prefix repo for base-system packages.
-- Finn Thain
Re: Re: [RFC] Separate alt-prefix repo for base-system packages.
-- Brian Harring
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-osx: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Re: [RFC] Separate alt-prefix repo for base-system packages.
Next by thread:
Re: Re: [RFC] Separate alt-prefix repo for base-system packages.
Previous by date:
Re: Re: [RFC] Separate alt-prefix repo for base-system packages.
Next by date:
Re: Re: [RFC] Separate alt-prefix repo for base-system packages.


Updated Jun 17, 2009

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-osx mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.