| 1 |
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 04:12:08 -0800 Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| What's needed is an extension of the portage configuration so that |
| 4 |
| it's able to specify multiple standalone repos, slaved (overlay) |
| 5 |
| repos chained against the standalones, package.* filters applied to |
| 6 |
| each repo, etc. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Standalone doesn't fit in with the way things can be used. For any |
| 9 |
non-trivial case there will be inter-repository dependencies. Why not |
| 10 |
view your "collection of available packages" as the union of "packages |
| 11 |
available in any repository" instead? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
| Local news delivery *should* still be using the user label. Unique |
| 14 |
| repo internal labels don't matter to glep42, since the label that |
| 15 |
| news delivery _should_ use is what the user's configuration has named |
| 16 |
| it. |
| 17 |
| |
| 18 |
| Just stating it, since tagging a unique id into the repo isn't a hold |
| 19 |
| up for glep42. What is an issue with glep42 is planning for N repos, |
| 20 |
| eg another level of dirs/indirection as has already been stated. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
The holdup for GLEP 42 is that you're trying to demand that it supports |
| 23 |
some arbitrary future extension to Portage without specifying how that |
| 24 |
extension will work. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain) |
| 28 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 29 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives