| 1 |
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 21:47, Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Package names themselves can be thusly arbitrary , and could be a SHA |
| 3 |
> sum or something obscure, as long as all internals and dependencies |
| 4 |
> used the same arbitrary name, things would work as intended. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
I mentioned this idea of internally referencing packages by a hash in |
| 7 |
the other thread. As long as we're clear that the most common |
| 8 |
operation (emerge -av ${PN}) is still exposed to the user, it's |
| 9 |
perfectly valid. I want to be very sure we're clear in our |
| 10 |
understanding that tags are for discovery in cases where the user is |
| 11 |
not sure what is available (like categories). |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
As for the latter part, the size of a git repo becoming umanageable |
| 14 |
over time had not occurred to me, I'm afraid-- would it work to use |
| 15 |
shallow clones? Otherwise, the herd-wise division is probably |
| 16 |
acceptable. Need to think about that one more. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Regards, |
| 19 |
Wyatt |
Archives