Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] .53, .54 and beyond...

[Jason Stubbs]

On Saturday 26 November 2005 00:31, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 00:01 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I don't think there's really anything else that can be done for 2.0.53 so
> > am thinking that we should probably push _rc7 + docs out and let the arch
> > teams mark it stable when they're ready (or stick with 2.0.51.22-r3 if it
> > pleaseth them).
>
> [snip]
>
> > There's a few things listed on the new
> > (still unreleased?) project index and I'm looking to get the dependency
> > stuff refactored and moved out of emerge.. What are the shortterm goals?
>
> For me my short term goals are to see these things happen
>
> * pax-utils depends ( .53 )
> * seeing CDEPEND stop being created for the VDB ( .53 )

Definitely doable.

> * post_sync action hook (.53/.54 )
> * VDB prevention of single byte NULL entries being created. ( .54 )

Doable for .54.

> * new prepstrip offering splitdebug ( .53/.54 )

Need to work out exactly what will be offered when on this one, but at the 
earliest it will be .54. Perhaps go with your patch for .54 and leave 
Olivier's fancy bits for later? There are a few other questions too... Should 
the default be to generate external debug info? Should generating internal 
debug info still be offered? What platforms is it supported on?..

> * misc cleanups of dyn_install (.54 )

Need more info.

> * flattened vdb {P,R,}DEPEND (.54 )

I might be wrong but I can't really see this being done cleanly. At best, only 
USE flags could be gotten rid of which would still leave || () constructs. 
This leads me to question of what use it would really be. If it can only do a 
half-arsed job and in a messy way at that I'd personally prefer it to be done 
later on.

> * introduction of RRDEPEND to the VDB ( .54 )

What is this again?

> --
> Ned Ludd <solar@g.o>
> Gentoo Linux
-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list