| 1 |
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 01:49:14PM -0400, Kristian Benoit wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 16:38 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > Anyway, I hope you realize that your project doesn't only involve |
| 5 |
> > hacking on portage, but rewriting almost all of it for the client part. |
| 6 |
> > Actually I'd rather suggest you start from scratch |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I do agree with that, portage probably need a rewrite/better |
| 9 |
> modularization anyway. There is/was a project called portage-ng () you |
| 10 |
> might want to have a look at. I did a little in that direction recently, |
| 11 |
> and it seems that there is not too many people working on it since |
| 12 |
> drobbins left, but you can contact Pieter (pvdabeel@g.o). I might |
| 13 |
> get on that too at some point in the future too. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Portage-ng never resulted in anything tangible (read: code), further |
| 16 |
the doc wasn't really useful for anything then jotting down what's |
| 17 |
desired. Unless something's changed, that doc should've been yanked |
| 18 |
down. She's dead, jim. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Regarding modularization of portage, it requires that, but |
| 21 |
fundamentally it requires a rewrite of the core; there is no internal |
| 22 |
package abstraction, repository abstraction, hell, even a clean config |
| 23 |
abstraction (let alone cache abstraction). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
The 2.1 code that was pushed out for inspection addresses the cache |
| 26 |
issue mostly, and modularization as much as possible. Everything else |
| 27 |
falls to the rewrite which is underway- I'd suggest contacting portage |
| 28 |
devs, since what you're after is pretty much what's been designed to |
| 29 |
allow for, without requiring hacks to portage- just would be plugins. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
That and help would always be welcome :P |
| 32 |
~harring |
Archives