| 1 |
> do you think end-users need all ebuilds ? I have a laptop, and fetching |
| 2 |
> the whole portage tree doesn't make any sence, since I emerge only a few |
| 3 |
> apps. On the other hand, I'd like to fetch a "pre-computed" cache or |
| 4 |
> world file, and fetch only ebuilds when necessary (emerging a package |
| 5 |
> for example). Those "emerge rsync" are way too long, and can be |
| 6 |
> drasticly reducted using a different way of thinking. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Of course, the whole portage tree could be installed, as it is in FreeBSD ;) |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
You're right, they probably don't. My system will be quite modular and I image |
| 11 |
a new tree, maybe I'll implement it in the initial release. One concept I'm |
| 12 |
thinking about is something I call xpack (where xbuild is the extension of |
| 13 |
ebuilds that should be guaranteed to work with the new parser). This basically |
| 14 |
is a text based packaging format (like tar, but actually diffeable), that |
| 15 |
would contain all parts needed for an ebuild (source is optional). Such a file |
| 16 |
would make things a lot easier to manage and to download on demand. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
While my main focus will not be on ondemand downloading of xpacks (ebuilds is |
| 19 |
pointless) it should be fairly trivial to generate metadata files for the |
| 20 |
packages contained, maybe even on a category level. The transfer size could |
| 21 |
still be sizeable though. I believe that introduction of xpack files |
| 22 |
containing everything needed for an ebuild (except the manifest and |
| 23 |
metadata.xml) allready reduces the amount of files in the tree enormously. It |
| 24 |
also helps in being able to easilly remove unused patches ;-). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Paul |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 30 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 31 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 32 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives