| 1 |
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 20:22:16 +0100 |
| 2 |
Tomáš Chvátal <scarabeus@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> But in comment 4 user ask about updates itself. If we have live |
| 4 |
> package and revision does not change it is pointless waste of |
| 5 |
> resources to recompile it usualy. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Doing this properly is an awful lot of work and a lot trickier than |
| 8 |
initially apparent. There was a discussion in #gentoo-council about it |
| 9 |
after the last meeting; unfortunately I don't have logs. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I see the solution as being done in four parts, one after another: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
* Proper ordering for live packages. This is GLEP 54. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
* Allowing installed SCM ebuilds to identify the revision with which |
| 16 |
they were built. This isn't overly difficult, once you get around |
| 17 |
things like CVS not really having a revision. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
* Allowing SCM ebuilds to identify upfront, and potentially at |
| 20 |
--pretend time, with which revision they will be built. This is the |
| 21 |
hard part, especially if you want to be able to background fetch them. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
* Allowing user overrides of revisions in a controlled manner. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
In terms of goals, [1] is what I'd consider to be an ideal list. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Unfortunately, given the difficulty of getting even the first item on |
| 28 |
the list implemented, I don't see this going anywhere any time soon for |
| 29 |
Gentoo... |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
[1]: http://lists.exherbo.org/pipermail/exherbo-dev/2009-March/000409.html |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives