Re: [gentoo-dev] (FS) Attributes for Ebuilds?

[George Shapovalov]

A nice idea it is, however this will basically make portage *require* to have 
the tree reside on a filesystem that supports ACL's (I suppose you meant this 
by fs attributes? Otherwise please be more specific). Even forcing allocation 
of a separate partition to keep portage tree in some cases. This makes it, 
um, problematic to say the least..

The following point that you mention might offset the "downside":
> d. all this benefits without having to force a database as a dependancy
> on Gentoo users.
however I am not so sure. ACL's provide one with the means to store this 
"meta" information, however we also need a processing capability. Thus I am 
not sure that the requirement for db dependency is really eliminated - either 
portage will depend on db processing engine or it will reimplement the wheel 
once again :).


> Also note that I didn't propose or request this, I was just interested
> in some feedback and discussion if/why this is a good/bad approach in
> handling this category issue (and others, like if the name of a package
> changes you maybe could keep the old name as an attributes). I just
> think that Portage is hell of a package managment system and think
> discussion about how to further improve it (even my suggestion
> may not even be an improvement, but let the people who know
> Portage much better than I do clarify this) couldn't hurt.
Yup, its a nice try nontheless, and might be worth it further down the 
timeline, when say ACL's get universally accepted. However right now I am 
afraid this might be a showstopper :( 
(we need to think about the whole varietty of platforms we already support or 
plan supporting).
Well, this is just my understanding of the situation anyway and if anybody 
thinks otherwise (like the requirement isn't that gross and can be tolerated 
for the most part...) you are certainly welcome to contribute to discussion..

George




--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list