| 1 |
On Thu, 5 Jun 2003 00:52:34 -0700 |
| 2 |
George Shapovalov <george@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> A nice idea it is, however this will basically make portage *require* |
| 5 |
> to have the tree reside on a filesystem that supports ACL's |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
True, but IIRC gentoo-sources use the patches for ext2/3, right? That's |
| 8 |
what I meant by making this whole thing optional via a local useflag, so |
| 9 |
just people who use a capable filesystem have to use it. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> however I am not so sure. ACL's provide one with the means to store |
| 12 |
> this "meta" information, however we also need a processing capability. |
| 13 |
> Thus I am not sure that the requirement for db dependency is really |
| 14 |
> eliminated - either portage will depend on db processing engine or it |
| 15 |
> will reimplement the wheel once again :). |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Ok, this one was just a guess ;-) I assumed that filesystems which |
| 18 |
support ACL's/extended attributes/whatever have the tools to deal with |
| 19 |
them included... |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> Yup, its a nice try nontheless, and might be worth it further down the |
| 22 |
> timeline, when say ACL's get universally accepted. However right now I |
| 23 |
> am afraid this might be a showstopper :( |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Thanks, that was actually the kind of answer I expected. As I already |
| 26 |
said, I just wanted to bring up this idea and see how people like it. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Michael |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
www.cargal.org |
| 32 |
GnuPG-key-ID: 0x90CA09E3 |
| 33 |
Jabber-ID: citizen428 [at] cargal [dot] org |
| 34 |
Registered Linux User #278726 |
Archives