1 |
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 12:14:30AM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:33:18 -0800 Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> | On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 09:54:06PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
4 |
> | > Well, if Portage ever gets multiple repository support, then news |
5 |
> | > clients can be updated to handle it. The GLEP says that already. |
6 |
> | Care to clarify how that transition is going to occur? |
7 |
> | |
8 |
> | Your proposal, if you know a roadblock is coming down the line I |
9 |
> | expect it to be documented in the glep (with potential suggestions |
10 |
> | how to minimize the horkage). |
11 |
> |
12 |
> It'll probably just be a case of updating news clients to query Portage |
13 |
> somehow for a list of repository IDs and using appropriately named news |
14 |
> files. |
15 |
|
16 |
Transitioning from single news.unread to N is going to break clients |
17 |
that expect a single. |
18 |
|
19 |
As I said, you're going to break stuff- and you're building it into |
20 |
your glep out of (aparent) stubborness. |
21 |
|
22 |
What do you want, another glep amending yours with that one little |
23 |
detail? Or someone just gets off their ass and tweaks your glep, gets |
24 |
another glep #, and stops the pointless arguing with you and pushes |
25 |
a competing glep? |
26 |
|
27 |
The news glep crosses several groups, collaboration here is required, |
28 |
meaning *listen* to the folk you're trying to command. Otherwise the |
29 |
glep *will* go nowhere no matter how much noise you make. |
30 |
|
31 |
|
32 |
> Hard to say for sure without details of how exactly multiple |
33 |
> repository support will work though -- for example, if you're going to |
34 |
> allow fancy characters in repository names then some kind of name |
35 |
> mangling standard will need to be defined. |
36 |
|
37 |
Standard ascii, same rules required for glep31. |
38 |
|
39 |
|
40 |
> | If you're going to create and dump a mess on us, I expect it to be in |
41 |
> | the proposal- especially since your proposal is intrinsically portage |
42 |
> | bound. |
43 |
> |
44 |
> There's very little that's Portage bound. As originally requested, I've |
45 |
> tried to keep as much as is reasonably possible *out* of Portage... |
46 |
|
47 |
It's distributed via the portage tree, it's updated by portage, the |
48 |
check for new news items is *via* portage, and check for news items |
49 |
prior to merging is done by portage. |
50 |
|
51 |
If that truly was your intention, you failed in it.. It's bound to |
52 |
portage, despite the rhetoric. |
53 |
|
54 |
|
55 |
> | Thing that's daft out of all of this time wasting is that what's |
56 |
> | being asked of you is a couple of portageq calls so that we're not |
57 |
> | screwed over by a feature. Something along the lines of... |
58 |
> | |
59 |
> | portageq get_repo_id path # helper method of getting repo_id for a |
60 |
> | path (dar) portageq match root atom [repo-id] # method of limiting |
61 |
> | matching of vdb to a specific source repo |
62 |
> | portageq newsdir repo_id # get the absolute news path for said id. |
63 |
> |
64 |
> You're asking me to guess how Portage multiple repository support will |
65 |
> work, and then ask for a bunch of changes to Portage to support |
66 |
> appropriate dummy functions. |
67 |
|
68 |
I'll remind you that portage devs have stated this is required for |
69 |
your damn glep. Iow, collaboration here is required- work out the api |
70 |
that you need that fits in with what we need, instead of wasting our |
71 |
time arguing over whether you should do it or not. |
72 |
|
73 |
|
74 |
> Unless you're prepared to commit |
75 |
> yourselves to saying "multiple repository support will work like |
76 |
> $blah", I'm not going to even think about asking you to restrict |
77 |
> yourselves to a particular implementation... |
78 |
|
79 |
There's no asking here; you're pushing a glep, we've stated in it's |
80 |
current form constrains *our* efforts long term. |
81 |
|
82 |
Word games suck, instead of playing them you *should* be trying to |
83 |
address the concerns- iow, what do you *explicitly* need from portage, |
84 |
|
85 |
|
86 |
> Especially since you've said "we're not doing it the way you think it |
87 |
> should work"... |
88 |
|
89 |
Where have I stated that? My statements thus far about multi repo |
90 |
were in reference to a glep that missed the target. |
91 |
|
92 |
Provide quotes please, or get back to nailing down exactly what you |
93 |
need portageq wise so we can state "do it this way, and we'll shut |
94 |
up". |
95 |
|
96 |
|
97 |
> | If it's too slow, I'd suggest since it's your proposal, looking for a |
98 |
> | method to batch up the calls (modularization of portageq would be |
99 |
> | required, which is available in the dead ebd branch already). Tricks |
100 |
> | of that sort are easily implemented, and don't require specs and |
101 |
> | gleps (just requires someone to do a minor bit of work). |
102 |
> |
103 |
> That's not likely to be a major performance hit... We're not expecting |
104 |
> the user to have more than a few repositories, are we? |
105 |
|
106 |
Stated it to cut off any angle of "waah, can't go that route, |
107 |
portageq calls are to slow". |
108 |
|
109 |
Something your glep doesn't clarify and I want nailed down in stone |
110 |
(since at your request we are being explicit here), is how the |
111 |
'package manager' is going to track news items that are marked as |
112 |
unread already, further the news.skip file. |
113 |
|
114 |
Basically... you're the glep author/champion, implementing the portage |
115 |
modifications are your responsibility (we may help, but it's your job |
116 |
to do it). Since this proposal *is* complicating portage, hand waving |
117 |
of the sort "implementation is not specified by this GLEP" I want |
118 |
nailed down. |
119 |
|
120 |
You want us to nail everything down for our request, I'd like you to |
121 |
do the same (especially since we're stuck maintaining whatever you |
122 |
propose/create). |
123 |
~harring |