| 1 |
On 11/18/2014 03:02 PM, vivo75@×××××.com wrote: |
| 2 |
> Il 18/11/2014 14:12, Jauhien Piatlicki ha scritto: |
| 3 |
>> On 11/18/2014 04:19 AM, heroxbd@g.o wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Jauhien Piatlicki <jauhien@g.o> writes: |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>>> It would be probably good to have in the tree only the core components and move other stuff to the thematic overlays. |
| 7 |
>>>> |
| 8 |
>>>> Then we can have a clear understanding, how things should be: if |
| 9 |
>>>> something is a part of the core system, it goes to the tree, if |
| 10 |
>>>> something is a scientific packages, it lives in the science overlay, |
| 11 |
>>>> if something is a java stuff it lives in the java overlay, etc. |
| 12 |
>>> This is a good idea. One difficulty: how to handle inter-overlay |
| 13 |
>>> dependence? Either the dependency should be expressed by overlay + |
| 14 |
>>> ebuild, or the dependent ebuild should be moved into the "core overlay". |
| 15 |
>>> I haven't figured out a clean solution yet. |
| 16 |
>>> |
| 17 |
>> Yes, this is a weak point of decentralization. We should think how to |
| 18 |
>> solve it. The possible solution is using of dependencies between |
| 19 |
>> overlays (one overlay says, it depends on other). We already have such a |
| 20 |
>> feature, we only need to add more support for it. Example of such a |
| 21 |
>> dependency: |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>> %cat /var/lib/layman/melpa-stable/metadata/layout.conf |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
>> repo-name = melpa-stable |
| 26 |
>> |
| 27 |
>> masters = gnu-elpa gentoo |
| 28 |
>> |
| 29 |
>> Dependencies on overlays in ebuilds is bad idea I think, as it only will |
| 30 |
>> introduce additional problems. Also think what if you need not a |
| 31 |
>> package, but an eclass or whatever else. |
| 32 |
>> |
| 33 |
>> In addition, one question that emerges is possible circular dependencies |
| 34 |
>> between overlays. We need a way to handle this. |
| 35 |
> As much as I dislike the idea to move development to overlays |
| 36 |
> circular dependancies is not a problem because it's a simple _mutual_ dep. |
| 37 |
> there is not really a concept of before and after at most priority for a |
| 38 |
> package. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
At the moment it is. As `masters` is really not the dependency, but |
| 43 |
instruction to use eclasses from a given overlay. May be we need to |
| 44 |
rethink layout.conf a little bit and add real overlay dependencies. But |
| 45 |
here another question arises: overlays are not specified in PMS and so |
| 46 |
treated by every PM in a different manner. There master repositories are |
| 47 |
mentioned, but there is no specification afaik. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
-- |
| 50 |
Jauhien |
Archives