| 1 |
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:48, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:39:14 +0900 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
> | And how can that be adapted to work with overlays, completely |
| 6 |
> | ignoring the possibility of distinct repositories. Overlays is |
| 7 |
> | something that exists already and news support for them is a request |
| 8 |
> | that will appear as soon as news support is added. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Overlays don't contain metadata directories |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
There's nothing preventing this. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> and don't get synced, |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
As Zac pointed out, esync exists. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> so they don't contain news items. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Neither of the points above prevent an overlay from containing news items. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> Supporting news from multiple sources is something that's tied to supporting |
| 23 |
> packages from multiple sources, which overlay doesn't permit. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Overlays are used for getting packages from multiple sources every day. The |
| 26 |
only thing preventing them from supporting getting news from multiple sources |
| 27 |
is your stubborness against adding a single level of indirection - a level of |
| 28 |
indirection that has absolutely no cost to readers. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> Fixing that would require fixing portage to support multiple repositories |
| 31 |
> rather than using overlay, which is an issue for a different GLEP. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I'll say it again. It wouldn't require a GLEP because the changes wouldn't go |
| 34 |
beyond portage. At least they wouldn't if you'd allow portage to keep its |
| 35 |
internals internal. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives