| 1 |
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 10:34 PM, <lxnay@××××××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Adding "@overlay" atoms/deps postfix support could really make life |
| 3 |
> easier, especially because forcing specific atoms in *DEPEND hoping |
| 4 |
> that these will be always pulled in from the same overlay is not |
| 5 |
> something reliable, as you already know. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Examples: |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> app-foo/foo@overlay |
| 10 |
> app-foo/foo:2@overlay |
| 11 |
> foo:2@overlay |
| 12 |
> foo@overlay |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Comments are welcome, flames are not. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Won't this just lead to dependency hell? With horrible dependencies |
| 17 |
between different overlays? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The current system of "overlays" being restrictive is (IMO) beneficial |
| 20 |
in the long-term because it forces people to move stuff to the main |
| 21 |
tree instead of going the lazy way and putting inter-overlay |
| 22 |
dependencies. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
If the concept of "overlay" is taken as "feature overlays", then |
| 25 |
dependencies should not go beyond the main tree + the overlay itself. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
~Nirbheek Chauhan |
Archives