| 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. |
| 4 |
|
| 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. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Anyway, I just read portage-core.py and wanted to discuss it some: |
| 10 |
|
| 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. |
| 16 |
|
| 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? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Is there a reason to not use "1.0-*" instead of introducing another |
| 24 |
special char in the syntax, "~1.0"? |
| 25 |
|
| 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. :-) |
| 29 |
|
| 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... :-) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
--Chouser |
Archives