| 1 |
On 11/20/2014 12:58 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:54 PM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 11/19/2014 06:27 PM, Jauhien Piatlicki wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On 11/19/2014 03:36 PM, hasufell wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> |
| 6 |
>>>> In the end, I'm not sure if this is actually such a big problem. You can |
| 7 |
>>>> still use random ebuilds from random overlays and commit them straight |
| 8 |
>>>> to your own overlay. |
| 9 |
>>>> |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>> A bad idea. Bad because of the same reason why copy-past in your code |
| 12 |
>>> would be bad. |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> Depends. If a third-party overlay dependency regularly breaks my |
| 16 |
>> packages, I am going to copy paste it into my own to have more control |
| 17 |
>> over it. |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> At that point it is forked. I don't see what's wrong with forking. |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> What happens when 3 overlays all fork the same dependency, and you |
| 23 |
> want to use all three? |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I didn't suggest to regularly fork ebuilds and do things unmodular (see |
| 27 |
my whole post). I was simply questioning whether all this is actually a |
| 28 |
big problem and if such a scenario of forked ebuilds that diverge a LOT |
| 29 |
and cause random build failures in other overlays will happen frequently. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
The only case this happened to me is when people were eager to hack |
| 32 |
multilib support into random ebuilds (including games overlays). That |
| 33 |
was really dangerous. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> The distributed repository works well for release-based distros since |
| 36 |
> the core of the OS is fixed. A repository for Ubuntu x.y will always |
| 37 |
> work with Ubuntu x.y, since Ubuntu x.y isn't going to upgrade from |
| 38 |
> libfoo-2 to incompatible libfoo-2.3. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> On the other hand, libraries on Gentoo can change without warning, and |
| 41 |
> the only quality standard we impose is that the main repo still works |
| 42 |
> (with no forced testing of distributed repos). |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> If we want to truly support first-class distributed repos, then we'll |
| 45 |
> need to impose a number of standards on the main tree that we do not |
| 46 |
> impose today. |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
I am not entirely sure if this is just an enhancement or a necessity, |
| 50 |
but I see your point. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
But keep in mind that the core is supposed to shrink with this idea of a |
| 53 |
distributed model! So it would be less work to actually roll/tag |
| 54 |
releases than it would be right now (or even do that stuff in branches). |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Exherbo is already running a more modular approach, I'd be interested |
| 57 |
what they have to say about this or which problems they were facing. |
| 58 |
I'll probably also dig a bit deeper into NixOS and see what tools they |
| 59 |
use for creating NixOS based distros. |
Archives