1 |
Il 18/11/2014 14:12, Jauhien Piatlicki ha scritto: |
2 |
> On 11/18/2014 04:19 AM, heroxbd@g.o wrote: |
3 |
>> Jauhien Piatlicki <jauhien@g.o> writes: |
4 |
>> |
5 |
>>> It would be probably good to have in the tree only the core components and move other stuff to the thematic overlays. |
6 |
>>> |
7 |
>>> Then we can have a clear understanding, how things should be: if |
8 |
>>> something is a part of the core system, it goes to the tree, if |
9 |
>>> something is a scientific packages, it lives in the science overlay, |
10 |
>>> if something is a java stuff it lives in the java overlay, etc. |
11 |
>> This is a good idea. One difficulty: how to handle inter-overlay |
12 |
>> dependence? Either the dependency should be expressed by overlay + |
13 |
>> ebuild, or the dependent ebuild should be moved into the "core overlay". |
14 |
>> I haven't figured out a clean solution yet. |
15 |
>> |
16 |
> Yes, this is a weak point of decentralization. We should think how to |
17 |
> solve it. The possible solution is using of dependencies between |
18 |
> overlays (one overlay says, it depends on other). We already have such a |
19 |
> feature, we only need to add more support for it. Example of such a |
20 |
> dependency: |
21 |
> |
22 |
> %cat /var/lib/layman/melpa-stable/metadata/layout.conf |
23 |
> |
24 |
> repo-name = melpa-stable |
25 |
> |
26 |
> masters = gnu-elpa gentoo |
27 |
> |
28 |
> Dependencies on overlays in ebuilds is bad idea I think, as it only will |
29 |
> introduce additional problems. Also think what if you need not a |
30 |
> package, but an eclass or whatever else. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> In addition, one question that emerges is possible circular dependencies |
33 |
> between overlays. We need a way to handle this. |
34 |
As much as I dislike the idea to move development to overlays |
35 |
circular dependancies is not a problem because it's a simple _mutual_ dep. |
36 |
there is not really a concept of before and after at most priority for a |
37 |
package. |