Re: [gentoo-dev] Defining the Tree: a proto-GLEP.

[Alec Warner]

Daniel Ostrow wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 19:04 -0400, Luis Francisco Araujo wrote:
>
>>Stephen Bennett wrote:
>>
>>>Continuing in the series of issues raised during the previous package
>>>manager discussions, I'd like to continue by mentioning the tree
>>>format. At present, it isn't defined beyond "what the current portage
>>>supports", which is frankly a fairly silly way to do things. Following
>>>discussion in #gentoo-portage, I'd like to set out to change that.
>>>
>>>My current idea is to draw up a formal specification of what ebuilds
>>>are allowed to do, and what to assume about the environment in which
>>>they run, as well as defining the formats of everything under
>>>profiles/, metadata.xml files, and other auxiliary information in the
>>>tree. I would envision the first version of this document to more or
>>>less codify existing practise, perhaps excluding some dubious tricks
>>>that are known to break in some cases. Generally, it should be possible
>>>to make the tree conform to the first version of the specification by
>>>changes no more significant than currently have QA bugs filed for them.
>>>
>>>It seems fairly obvious that any effort of this kind could potentially
>>>have implications, albeit hopefully very minor, across more or less all
>>>aspects of the tree, and so I'd like to seek as wide a range of input
>>>as possible before going ahead with it. The QA and Portage teams, based
>>>on my enquiries in IRC, seem broadly in favour, and I would imagine
>>>that this could be very helpful to Gentoo/ALT as well, so I'd like
>>>opinions from others at this point. Would you support such an effort,
>>>whether passively or actively? Would you oppose it? If so, why? Final
>>>implementation of it would I assume require the Council's approval;
>>>while I won't ask at this stage for a formal discussion I'd appreciate
>>>the views of its members on whether such an initiative is likely to
>>>pass.
>>>
>>>Any input is gratefully received.
>>>
>>
>>I like the idea. This would be some kind of portage-tree standard?
>
>
> It's been one of the missing cornerstones of the whole equation. Lets
> get it done and get it done right.
>
> One thing I do ask...Lets all start now getting used to calling the
> "portage tree" something different. I'm all for terms like "the tree" or
> "the ebuild tree" or "the package tree" but at this point, given the
> prompting subject matter, the idea of it being a tree which belongs to
> portage seems outdated. This may seem like a small thing (like the teams
> vs. herds argument that has been brought up countless times before) but
> it is the silly little things like this that really do lower the mental
> bar for new and exciting things to happen.
>

I prefer gentoo-x86, although others hate that x86-centric moniker ;)

> Thanks,
>
> --Dan

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list