| 1 |
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 11:26:48PM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
> This is your friendly reminder! Same bat time (typically the 2nd & 4th |
| 3 |
> Thursdays at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @ |
| 4 |
> irc.freenode.net) ! |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Informal request, but it would be useful to get an idea of the |
| 7 |
councils views on portage overlay compatibility issues. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Specifically, when it comes to gentoo repositories, there is one, and |
| 10 |
only one definition of what that is- pms's repo spec. The problem |
| 11 |
here is that the only repository truly conformant to that spec is |
| 12 |
gentoo-x86, for the rest of the repositories (overlays realistically) |
| 13 |
whatever portage supports seems to be the eventual standard they grow |
| 14 |
towards. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Problem with this is that there is *zero* way to spot these non-pms |
| 17 |
repositories as it stands. Simplest example, under portage overlays |
| 18 |
can unmask pkgs globally (gnome overlay reverting masks in |
| 19 |
gentoo-x86), package.unmask exists/works, package.keywords |
| 20 |
exists/works, and package.mask can be a directory. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I've not traced through the mess of config's __init__ to verify |
| 23 |
*every* pms noncompliance there, but I'd assume there are definitely a |
| 24 |
couple more hanging around to blow up in alt managers faces. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
At the very least I'm after having the non-pms repos marked in some |
| 27 |
fashion so that alt implementations don't have to assume the portage |
| 28 |
standard (rather then the *agreed to* pms standard) to avoid |
| 29 |
exploding, but that's a rather short sighted solution- something is |
| 30 |
needed long term. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Either way, I'd be curious about the councils *informal* opinion on |
| 33 |
the overlay issue. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
thanks, |
| 36 |
~harring |
Archives