| 1 |
On 12/11/2014 03:38 AM, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 12/11/2014 12:25 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Dnia 2014-12-10, o godz. 18:08:00 |
| 4 |
>> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>> Add support for a new @profile set which allows the profile to pull |
| 7 |
>>> in additional packages that do not belong to the @system set. |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>> The motivation to have @profile separate from @system is that |
| 10 |
>>> @system packages may have incomplete dependency specifications |
| 11 |
>>> (due to long-standing Gentoo policy), and incomplete dependency |
| 12 |
>>> specifications have deleterious effects on the ability of emerge |
| 13 |
>>> --jobs to parallelize builds. So, unlike @system, packages added to |
| 14 |
>>> @profile do not hurt emerge --jobs parallelization. |
| 15 |
>>> |
| 16 |
>>> Packages are added to the @profile set in the same way that they are |
| 17 |
>>> added to the @system set, except that atoms in the @profile set are |
| 18 |
>>> not preceded with a '*' character. Also, the @profile package set |
| 19 |
>>> is only supported when 'profile-set' is listed in the layout.conf |
| 20 |
>>> profile-formats field of the containing repository. |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> PMS says PMs ought to ignore atoms without '*'. This means we can't use |
| 23 |
>> it without profile EAPI change, or other PMs will start losing packages. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I have to agree, any chance we can get this into EAPI 6? |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> It's hidden behind a layout.conf profile-formats flag, so it's beyond |
| 28 |
> the scope of PMS. Package managers should reject the profile if they |
| 29 |
> don't recognize the profile-formats flags that it declares. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
Yes, but that still makes this change incompatible with other package |
| 32 |
managers, no? If we remove the leading * from a package to signify that |
| 33 |
it can safely be built in parallel that would mean all non-portage |
| 34 |
package managers would just plain lose the package, if they didn't shit |
| 35 |
themselves because the file had an invalid line. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
We need to make this EAPI dependant or we are going to break things, and |
| 38 |
QA doesn't like it when things this big break. I love where this is |
| 39 |
going, but I do not see a better solution here than making it EAPI |
| 40 |
dependent. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-Zero |
Archives