| 1 |
On Monday 25 May 2009, lxnay@××××××××××××.org wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Alex Legler <a3li@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On So, 2009-05-24 at 20:04 +0200, lxnay@××××××××××××.org wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> [...] |
| 5 |
> >> |
| 6 |
> >> >> app-admin/equo (sabayon overlay -- Entropy Framework client) |
| 7 |
> >> >> supports the postfix "@repository" to let users force the |
| 8 |
> >> >> installation of a package from a specific repository. |
| 9 |
> >> > |
| 10 |
> >> > @ is used by Portage for sets. Paludis has been using ::repo for |
| 11 |
> >> > repo dependencies for years. Why not go with the established |
| 12 |
> >> > syntax? |
| 13 |
> >> |
| 14 |
> >> I wrote "postfix" not "prefix". Sets use "@" prefix. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > Your @ is still a prefix for the repository name. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Yeah but "emerge @overlay" would be obviously illegal. So your |
| 19 |
> argument is a bit pointless ;) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
# emerge --update lsof @system |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
versus |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
# emerge --update lsof@system |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
would have completely different meanings. This is what I would dislike |
| 28 |
about the '@' character. I'm ok with :: though. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
If we use repo_name as the overlay identifier, we must rethink how |
| 31 |
layman-global.txt is currently handled. Many overlays in there have |
| 32 |
that file missing, and some have different identifiers than what layman |
| 33 |
displays as their name. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Is this specifier stored and considered on future dependency |
| 36 |
calculations (e.g. updates, dependencies of other ebuilds on the |
| 37 |
package that was installed via @overlay)? Where is it stored, how is it |
| 38 |
displayed to the user in emerge/eix output? |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Robert |
Archives