| 1 |
On Thu, 8 Nov 2001 22:57:24 -0500 |
| 2 |
Chris Houser <chouser@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> I don't know if the discusion of the recently begun portage v2 rewrite |
| 5 |
> deserves it's own list or not, but I thought I'd start discussing it |
| 6 |
> here, and we can decide later if we need to move it. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Here would be nice for now to let people know that active work is done on |
| 9 |
portage, and that comments (and later on patches!) are always welcome. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> For any gentooers haven't heard about v2, please be aware that it is |
| 12 |
> only just beginning. I'm sure the current portage will go through many |
| 13 |
> new releases before the v2 codebase is ready. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
As usual, developers and users shouldn't hold their breath. The current |
| 16 |
portage has the perk that it actually works ;) |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> I think I like the proposed new dependency syntax. It doesn't seem as |
| 19 |
> flexible as another that was proposed earlier on this list (by karltk? |
| 20 |
> sorry, don't remember). Are there good reasons to use this less |
| 21 |
> flexible scheme, such as readability or something? Or is my premise |
| 22 |
> incorrect? |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Is there a reason to not use "1.0-*" instead of introducing another |
| 25 |
> special char in the syntax, "~1.0"? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
IMNSHO the depency syntax (and consequently its semantics and |
| 28 |
implementation) should be discussed thoroughly. I really want a flexible |
| 29 |
scheme that's easy to use _and_ scales. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
By this I mean that it should be trivial to specify trivial dependencies, |
| 32 |
and eminently possible to specify really complex dependencies. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
The more flexible syntax I proposed earlier (yes, you remembered |
| 35 |
correctly), was intended to solve the latter part; making it possible to |
| 36 |
specify complex dependencies. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
I will see if I can't work out a complete proposal for some kind of |
| 39 |
"unified syntax" (I guess Rational will sue me now) this weekend. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
> Ok, I guess that's all I have at the moment. I suppose we should start |
| 42 |
> discussing how to split up the work that needs to be done. Maybe |
| 43 |
> drobbins will just tell us each what to do. :-) |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Now you assume he has time between writing articles, job hunting, |
| 46 |
maintaining his baby and helping newbies on the channel ;) |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
> Oh, I think we should start writing test code for these new classes |
| 49 |
> immediately, and maintain them as we go along. I think python has some |
| 50 |
> good support for regression test sorts of things, but I'm not very |
| 51 |
> familier with it yet. Better go read... :-) |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Read the XP books lately, have you ? ;p |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
Karl T |
Archives