Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-portage-dev] proposed shift of files in the tree of non profiles files into seperate dir
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 08:44:54
Message-Id: 20050827084225.GW1701@nightcrawler
1 Hola all.
3 Straight to the point, I'm proposing that the following files-
4 arch.list
5 categories
6 use.desc
7 use.local.desc
8 package.mask
9 updates
11 be moved out of the profiles directory in the tree, and into the existing
12 metadata directory personally, due to the fact that the files above are
13 essentially repository metadata. Why move them *now* when they've
14 been around forever?
16 Those files should never have been placed there. They're repository
17 specific data (global data for the repo), and do not belong jammed
18 into profiles which is a seperate entity.
20 Further, while no one has yet proposed anything concrete, people have
21 been after revamping the profile implementation. Quite likely if/when
22 this occurs, it's going to require a seperate directory to avoid any
23 issues with older portage installations accessing it.
24 Shifting the files now while changes are being made addresses that
25 concern, and makes things a bit more logical.
27 Not surprising, few issues (and ways to deal with it).
28 For backwards compatability with portage tools, symlinks are needed to
29 prevent older portage versions and tools from suddenly being broke;
30 just do a relative link to the new location, no complaints from
31 portage. CVS does not play nice with symlinks however- fortunately
32 rsync sucks a bit less, so the symlinks would have to be added
33 by the rsync regen script (minor to do).
35 Two scenarios for how this will result in visible issues for people-
36 1) CVS users, aka, devs. Devs *should* be running latest portage,
37 which would know about the shift. If they're running an older
38 portage version and aren't willing to upgrade, they tag the
39 symlinks themselves. It's a minor annoyance frankly; assuming they
40 read -dev (like they're suppossed to :P ), they'll know in advance
41 it's coming.
42 2) users storing their tree on an fs that lacks symlink support. They
43 ought to be a miniscule minority, but any issues they hit would be
44 addressed by upgrading portage and any portage tools they use that
45 is reliant on those files. This is the worst case user scenario,
46 but again, it should be effectively non-existant.
48 Finally, lang.desc I can't find any reference to in portage tools-
49 zhen commited it almost 3 years back, and it hasn't been touched
50 since. Unless somebody knows what the heck that file is for, it's a
51 good candidate for removal.
53 I realize this may seem like a minor/stupid change, but it's a matter
54 of cleanup getting things a bit more consistant for when portage is
55 capable of dealing with more then one $PORTDIR.
56 ~harring