On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote:
>
> I don't think C is a necessity (even though it has my preference), and
> might interfere with some requirements, as Donnie already pointed out.
>

Yes, C was just an example. The reason is that I am more familiar with
C than with any other language, but I'm sure that the implementation
can be done in any language and modules can be implemented in any way
and language independent. Tool asks, module tells, tool acts.

>
> In this approach, would it be possible to just use the (existing) vdb?
> Tools like portage-utils show that you can search through its contents
> quickly enough not to even require an index actually.  And if the
> package manager is involved anyway, it can simply write those extra bits
> you need in the vdb as well, as separate entries.
>

I guess there is no need to search throughout hundreds of packages
when you can maintain your own (managed by portage) module db with all
necessary information. This solves our performance problems and is
easier to manage and to avoid conflicts.

> Big question would be, what.  Like, how would a thing like gcc-config or
> binutils-config be implemented like that.  How would be the management
> of different versions of the scripts that handle the actual switching
> and stuff.
>

"That" is not a very different implementation than what it is right
now. All config utilities share the same method (/etc/env.d) for
global configuration right? This is the part we would want to see
united with per-user support. Every specific stuff in such xyz-config
utilities that for some reason can't be done in a module can still
have it's own separate configuration, even though I doubt that
anything more than a module is needed.

All these q&a got me into thinking, and actually brought new ideas to
this project.

Cheers,
Sérgio