On 10/5/05, Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 01:48:03PM -0700, m h wrote:
> > On 10/5/05, Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o> wrote:
> > > Yay, time for another flame war (just what I'd love to spend my time
> > > on).
> >
> > Sorry, I'm really not trying to kindle any flames here.
> Heh, you're not, I'm just mildly pissy due to recurrent flamewars :)

In which case I'm sorry to be the bearer or recurrent touchy subjects ;)

>
> > So, on the topic of rewrite.  Does there happen to be any testcases
> > for portage?  Unittests, etc?  I'd be nice to verify that rewrite
> > behaves properly (well, actually I want testcases for selfish reasons,
> > so I don't break code if I change anything....)
> Niadda.
>
> Would love it if someone stepped up on that, since I don't
> particularly have the time right now :)
>
Can possibly help out on that, see below...

>
> > > Do 'em seperate.  Those who want interdomain, they can do the work.
> > > Those who want global offset, they can do that chunk.
> >
> > I understand the interdomain stuff to be that prefixed packages can
> > depend on packages outside of their prefix?  If so, I don't want this
> > "feature".  I want an isolated sandbox.  (Again, I realize others have
> > different needs)
> Pretty much.  Best description is dependencies between root's.
> Global prefix (for osx) would either
> A) have a vdb for that prefix that represented the package.provided
>    nodes
> B) have a domain for root=/, and do interdomain.
>
> A is likely route due to it being a helluva lot simpler; B is
> better/cleaner (imo), but it requires more work.
>

Hmmm, I'm not clear yet on the value of interdomain, but I'm sure
someone will enlighten me along the way...


> >
> > So, I figure I'm sortof diving in with Haubi's code (against the
> > advice of those wanted a complete spec) since I think my needs seem to
> > be the most minimum subset of what others want in this feature.  I
> > think it's a good way to help me understand the innards of portage
> > (though the code is pretty spaghetti right now).  I presume you think
> > I should start with "rewrite" as a base?  What is the current status
> > of rewrite?
> Rewrite's code is a heck of a lot cleaner; oop based for starters :)
> There is some nastyness, but it's encapsulated, and pretty much
> required.
>
> Current state of it is that I'm atm stuck on plugin code, and a slight
> change to the config handling code.
>
> Building/fetching are done, full immutable ebuild tree and vdb are
> done, immutable binpkg repository is done sans a package class.
>
> The mutable thing is basically querying the db; for vdb and binpkg,
> they need to be modifiable, able to add a package to the repository
> (merging).  I'm working on that atm.
>
> Jason's doing resolver work, state of that I can't comment on (that's
> his thing).
>
> ebuild*sh side of it's already done- if you were looking to test out
> prefix building (experiment) I'd probably start there.
>

OK, so since I have a deadline (end of next week) I'd like to have a
simple prototype working.  IE me running apache on FC4 with portage. 
If I can do that then it's very likely that I'll be able to devote a
bit of time towards working on this (where this could be rewrite) (bug
fixes, polishing it up, unittests, etc).  On that note, I need to know
what the timeframe for rewrite is.  If it's to a state where I can
work with it then maybe I should try and start from there.  But I'm
assumming it will be easier/quicker to get haubi's stuff working.

-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list