Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Chris Houser <chouser@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@××××××××××.org
Subject: [gentoo-dev] portage v2
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 20:58:27
1 I don't know if the discusion of the recently begun portage v2 rewrite
2 deserves it's own list or not, but I thought I'd start discussing it
3 here, and we can decide later if we need to move it.
5 For any gentooers haven't heard about v2, please be aware that it is
6 only just beginning. I'm sure the current portage will go through many
7 new releases before the v2 codebase is ready.
9 Anyway, I just read and wanted to discuss it some:
11 I think we should ditch the non-validating codepath, at least for now.
12 I'm sure it's probably slightly faster, but duplicating this code seems
13 like a bad idea with regards to maintenance. If we need the speed
14 later, we can optimize, perhaps by duplicating code, but preferrably
15 some other way.
17 I think I like the proposed new dependency syntax. It doesn't seem as
18 flexible as another that was proposed earlier on this list (by karltk?
19 sorry, don't remember). Are there good reasons to use this less
20 flexible scheme, such as readability or something? Or is my premise
21 incorrect?
23 Is there a reason to not use "1.0-*" instead of introducing another
24 special char in the syntax, "~1.0"?
26 Ok, I guess that's all I have at the moment. I suppose we should start
27 discussing how to split up the work that needs to be done. Maybe
28 drobbins will just tell us each what to do. :-)
30 Oh, I think we should start writing test code for these new classes
31 immediately, and maintain them as we go along. I think python has some
32 good support for regression test sorts of things, but I'm not very
33 familier with it yet. Better go read... :-)
35 --Chouser


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] portage v2 Karl Trygve Kalleberg <karltk@×××××××.no>