Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] making the tree depend on portage

[Marius Mauch]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:53:29 +0900
Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o> wrote:

> On Wednesday 21 December 2005 01:57, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > Reasoning on checking all system atoms is that other groups are
> > > just as likely to need the functionality as we are. Combining
> > > that with how rarely versions are actually updated for system
> > > packages, it shouldn't cause any more bother to users than it
> > > needs to.
> >
> > Well, that approach has one major problem: it won't help for profile
> > changes (like the mess with the cascaded profiles).
>
> Making the tree DEPEND on a specific portage version won't help
> either. If the user doesn't have a profile, they have no ARCH or
> other important things which means they can't use emerge.

There can be other potential changes that will not break portage
completely.

> > Also I don't see what "system" has to do with handling the tree
> > itself, and for anything else people can add dependencies, or am I
> > missing something here?
>
> Doing it via system is more generic with no loss in functionality
> that I can see. As I said above, the only time that not doing it in
> system would be useful is if system itself is not available but
> profile problems imply that one can't emerge anyway.

It has other drawbacks though. First "system" is arbitrary, imagine a
"nterprise desktop" profile or so where sytem includes gnome/kde.
The main issue I have with it though is that it spreads the focus too
much, your example had what, 20 packages? What I'm after is a
information when we *know* that the tree won't work anymore, not a "it
may be better to upgrade".

Did I mention that I don't really like this idea in the first place?

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.