| 1 |
On Saturday 18 September 2004 11:29 am, Dan Armak wrote: |
| 2 |
> I don't understand what you mean by pseudo-packages, unless it's the |
| 3 |
> DO_NOT_COMPILE thing below. Please elaborate. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
I would have used "virtual packages", however I don't believe they provide the |
| 6 |
functionality that the subsequent example would have required. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> Which doesn't scale, because portage can't manage those dependencies. You |
| 10 |
> can't depend on just one piece of kdebase (eg khtml) this way, and you |
| 11 |
> can't add/remove just one piece without also recompiling all other pieces |
| 12 |
> you want to keep. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
It would certainly require a fair amount of new scripting, regardless of how |
| 15 |
the system was implemented. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Regarding adding and removing packages, what prevents Portage from compiling |
| 18 |
only the KMail components (and dependencies) of the kdepim package, and then |
| 19 |
merging it onto the filesystem? Likewise, they could be removed in a similar |
| 20 |
fashion. It seems as though the only major difference is that the source |
| 21 |
files would be stored in a shared archive rather than an independent archive. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> This and similar solutions have been discussed to death before now, see bug |
| 25 |
> #11123. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I have, though we're still no closer to an actual solution. Bug #11123 was |
| 28 |
last updated quite a while ago, and I don't believe that twelve replies |
| 29 |
constitutes a heavily discussed topic. I don't mean to seem abrasive, however |
| 30 |
this issue needs to be addressed, not deferred. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> I mentioned 'most people' simply to point out that we're assigning limited |
| 34 |
> resources to the greatest demand. As Caleb says, with enough maintainers |
| 35 |
> this would be quite doable (provided the config caching portage enhancement |
| 36 |
> alleviated the performance issue). |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
I realize that community support only extends as far as it is volunteered, but |
| 39 |
perhaps instead of simply stating that it would be possible with more |
| 40 |
contributions and passing off the topic, a more concrete solution can be |
| 41 |
found? |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
At the very least, if the Gentoo community were to agree on the best way to |
| 44 |
implement the KDE package segregation, regardless of the required volunteer |
| 45 |
time, it would be a step in the right direction. I would certainly be willing |
| 46 |
to volunteer in helping to maintain the packages if they could be properly |
| 47 |
handled by Portage. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
You mentioned "enough" maintainers. Assuming that the current maintainers are |
| 50 |
already strained with keeping packages up-to-date, approximately how many new |
| 51 |
volunteers would be needed? |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
-- |
| 55 |
Anthony Gorecki |
| 56 |
Ectro-Linux Foundation |
Archives