Gentoo Archives: gentoo-osx

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o>
To: gentoo-osx@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-osx] Re: [RFC] Separate alt-prefix repo for base-system packages.
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 23:14:25
Message-Id: 20050830231337.GM13987@nightcrawler
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-osx] Re: [RFC] Separate alt-prefix repo for base-system packages. by Finn Thain
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 01:32:04AM +1000, Finn Thain wrote:
> > > > Reasoning is, how do you know that pkg xyz is actually the package > > > > you're after? > > Re-inserted the quote to clarify what I'm talking about; mapping another > > pkg managers db into our own requires either a lot of human > > intervention, or some dodgy rules that somewhat manage it, with bugs. > > OK, I see what you mean. You're asking, how does portage know that vendor > package xyz is the portage package abc? > > Short answer is package.mask, meta-packages and name mapping. > > A particular vendor package version is a known-good dep, as tested by > devs, otherwise it is masked. E.g. package.mask says > >vendor-sun/app-arch/cpio-x.y.z if no higher version has been tested. In > mac os, automated updates mean that most of the time, there will be some > vendor packages that the tree hasn't been tested against. These have to be > masked until the user does emerge sync.
Alright, so I'm just being a tool 'coz I thought you were talking about dynamic mapping (vs dev managed mappings). Nevermind me :)
> BTW, do repos share a namespace? Presented with the same cpv in several > repos, is portage's behaviour defined yet?
repo's have their own *total* namespace now; an overlay + repo is different though since an overlay is slaved to a repo. <=2.1 basically lacks any true support for N repos; you can have a portdir(+overlays), a vdb, and a bintree. Rewrite has no such restriction built into it.
> My feeling is that the burden of managing the mappings is better than the > burden of managing one package.provided for mac os 10.3, alongside another > for 10.4, etc. (If I'm wrong about that, then this exercise is pointless.)
Actually, I agree; it's cleaner then just autoassuming stuff is there.
> Did I read something about the rewrite being modular? Could the shim/query > take the form of a portage plugin that implements the query-apple-packages > feature? Obviously, if implemented the way I descibed above, it would need > to be intimate with certain ebuilds' environments.
Well, considering I'm seriously considering when/if rewrite is released, it's released as two packages; portage-core, and portage-ebuild... yes. Very modular. There pretty much is one point of required entry into the code; getting the config obj- from there it loads the code it needs, instantiating objects on the fly. Aside from the entry point/config obj, everything else is intended to be configurable. ~harring


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-osx] Re: [RFC] Separate alt-prefix repo for base-system packages. Finn Thain <fthain@××××××××××××××××.au>