Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Repository stacking and complementary overlays
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 16:48:16
Message-Id: 20090302164807.6324266c@snowcone
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Repository stacking and complementary overlays by Mart Raudsepp
1 On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 04:41:23 +0200
2 Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o> wrote:
3 > So here the reverting of a masking in gentoo-x86 is quite intentional
4 > and currently desired.
6 This is fundamentally broken as a concept.
8 Adding an overlay should not have any impact upon other repositories.
9 It should be possible for a user to add an overlay, and make limited
10 use of that repository, without having to worry that the mere act of
11 adding that overlay will make massive changes to what's visible in
12 other repositories.
14 Overlays shouldn't be altering the visibility of things outside of that
15 overlay without explicit user action.
17 > By this snippet we could simply move the current relevant maskings
18 > from profiles/package.mask to profiles/base/package.mask and call it
19 > a day (and screw over the few profiles that don't end up parenting
20 > base/), as QA forced us to do in case of per-arch mask negations in
21 > gentoo-x86 a while back.
22 > But it doesn't seem to be as simple as that.
24 Well no, because profiles/base/ in your overlay is entirely unrelated
25 to profiles/base/ in the master.
27 > > Only reason it flies for portage is because it collapses it all
28 > > into one stack; for managers designed to support multiple
29 > > standalone repos that assumption no longer applies, thus that
30 > > behaviour (outside of PMS) breaks.
31 >
32 > Last I knew the official council approved PMS was meant to describe
33 > portage behaviour at the time, which appears to have been the same
34 > along the way - treating all overlays in the same "stack" as PORTDIR,
35 > perhaps as there is no means to declare a different "stack".
37 PMS does not attempt to document Portage behaviour in the cases where
38 Portage behaviour is dumb. That's the reason there's as little as
39 possible mentioned regarding overlays there -- Portage's overlay model
40 is a horrible hack, and forcing package managers to implement it rather
41 than offering a true multiple repository model would be a serious hit
42 on usability.
44 The way forward here is to identify what you're trying to achieve,
45 whilst ignoring how things are currently defined or what is or is not
46 possible. Then we can look at that and work out whether it can be
47 mapped to an existing solution or some easily-implementable new
48 solution. Starting with implementation is the wrong approach.
50 --
51 Ciaran McCreesh


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Repository stacking and complementary overlays Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Repository stacking and complementary overlays "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Repository stacking and complementary overlays Mart Raudsepp <leio@××××××××.net>