1 |
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 00:27:36 +1300 |
2 |
Kent Fredric <kentnl@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 11:14:15 +0000 |
5 |
> Michael 'veremitz' Everitt <gentoo@×××××××.xyz> wrote: |
6 |
> |
7 |
> > I know I'm gonna be shot down in flames, because $heresy, but here is where |
8 |
> > a package 'database' would actually work quite well, because you can |
9 |
> > trivially create a query that pulls this data out, and sorts it by package |
10 |
> > category or maintainer or whatever you like .. |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > Ok, let the flamewars begin ... |
13 |
> |
14 |
> There's no real problem with a package database, however, the real |
15 |
> limitation is in the ebuild source format, which ultimately means any |
16 |
> such database needs a lot of bash-sourcing hell to simply stay |
17 |
> up-to-date ( any time an eclass changes, the interpretation of every |
18 |
> ebuild that uses it also changes, necessitating some pretty fun(1) code ) |
19 |
> |
20 |
> And that winds you up fighting with portage internals. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> So simply, in order for somebody like me to actually implement such a |
23 |
> thing, a precursory step is to rewrite enough portage to do just that. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> But I haven't (yet) gotten around to that. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> |
28 |
> 1: Not actually fun. |
29 |
|
30 |
Doesn't https://packages.gentoo.org already have such a database? |
31 |
Unfortunately a3li used Elasticsearch, which no one understands, but |
32 |
it's a start. |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
James Le Cuirot (chewi) |
36 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |