1 |
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 08:50:32PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 12:06:09 -0700 Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> |
3 |
> wrote: |
4 |
> | Clarify on virtuals please. Unless you're mangling the data for |
5 |
> | sym/dir, that's an unmerge time decision (as such it's not vdb data |
6 |
> | specific). |
7 |
> |
8 |
> We're faking new-style virtuals for old-style virtuals, so things end |
9 |
> up in vdb that don't have an associated 'real' ebuild. Portage can't |
10 |
> unmerge them, and it has some trouble with the reduced-content entries |
11 |
> for these too. |
12 |
|
13 |
Instead of on the fly generation of the virtuals pkgs (as |
14 |
pkgcore/portage do), you've flattened them into an actual on disk vdb |
15 |
entry? |
16 |
|
17 |
Re: incompatibility, that can be dealt with by generating a fake |
18 |
ebuild- already generate an env from the looks of it (not seeing |
19 |
anything in RDEPEND/DEPEND however). |
20 |
|
21 |
|
22 |
> | > We went over this already. Remember webapp.eclass? |
23 |
> | |
24 |
> | Nope. Assume I'm stupid, don't ask a question when I ask for an |
25 |
> | answer, just state it please- saves both you and I time. |
26 |
> | |
27 |
> | Do recall they were triggering merge -C calls on their own, but |
28 |
> | that's not portage incompatibility as much as doing something dumb... |
29 |
> |
30 |
> And that's exactly it. At what point does something stop being API and |
31 |
> start being "someone is doing illegal things with internals"? |
32 |
|
33 |
Common sense. Paludis wouldn't like what they were doing any more |
34 |
then pkgcore nor portage- modification of a node cannot cause unstated |
35 |
dependency changes, what they were doing was going outside the |
36 |
constant metadata rules binding all ebuild supporting pkg managers |
37 |
(well, the ones that don't want the 100-400x hit from lacking a |
38 |
metadata cache at least). |
39 |
|
40 |
A real example of where portage doesn't support an ebuild in the |
41 |
tree would be welcome (as stated, if it exists it needs fixing). |
42 |
|
43 |
|
44 |
> | Ebuild is easy- I'm pointing at it because the local env issue should |
45 |
> | rear it's head there. It's also a tool that ebuild devs rely on |
46 |
> | fairly heavily for debugging, as such two birds one stone (locals |
47 |
> | issue you get to investigate closer, and you flesh paludis out |
48 |
> | further). |
49 |
> |
50 |
> Actually, I was planning to handle that one by BREAK_FUNCTIONS (name |
51 |
> sucks and is not final), which is kinda like SKIP_FUNCTIONS but rather |
52 |
> than skipping, launches an interactive shell. |
53 |
|
54 |
Did something similar with ebuild-shell- folks for the most part liked |
55 |
it. |
56 |
|
57 |
Meanwhile... get cracking, you'll see far more local assumptions |
58 |
transitioning between phases then transitioning between groupped merge |
59 |
phases -> groupped unmerge phases |
60 |
|
61 |
|
62 |
> | > Portage still relies upon being able to source ebuilds, even if |
63 |
> | > their EAPI isn't supported. |
64 |
> | |
65 |
> | Paludis doesn't? |
66 |
> |
67 |
> Nope. Paludis can sanely (as in, treat as EAPI masked) handle ebuilds |
68 |
> that bash can't parse. This paves the way for XML-based ebuilds, which |
69 |
> as we all know is a critical feature required for enterprise support. |
70 |
|
71 |
'Cept EAPI was specifically targeted at bash based ebuilds only. |
72 |
Alternative formats (non bash fex), expected folks to solve that issue |
73 |
themselves (since I didn't see a sane general solution to it). |
74 |
|
75 |
For what EAPI is defined as, portage supports it fully. |
76 |
|
77 |
|
78 |
> | Related, doc this stuff out please. Portage differences doc you've |
79 |
> | got is more "we're better cause of xyz"- which is fine, but a low |
80 |
> | level "this is what we do differently" (metadata/security fex) would |
81 |
> | at least allow the possibility of folks being on the same page. |
82 |
> |
83 |
> Yeah, that's something that would be useful. I was trying to get spb to |
84 |
> do it... |
85 |
|
86 |
I'd suggest it as priority- it's really not all that fun arguging over |
87 |
details lifted from scanning the code, and getting into terminology |
88 |
wars. |
89 |
|
90 |
Get the doc up, folks can evaluate what the actual support costs for |
91 |
paludis are vs assumptions/guesses. |
92 |
|
93 |
~harring |