1 |
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 14:42:25 -0800 |
2 |
"Brian Harring" <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> 2) code isn't root aware. |
5 |
|
6 |
If root == $ROOT, then I don't see how it would affect this. Even with |
7 |
$ROOT != / we're using the tools in / for most things, $ROOT is just |
8 |
for deployment. |
9 |
If root means something else here please clarify. |
10 |
|
11 |
> 3) no snapshot integration. |
12 |
|
13 |
Wanted to wait for feedback first before adjusting all tools. |
14 |
|
15 |
> 4) code invalidly assumes that all later version of the pulled atom |
16 |
> from vdb will work. |
17 |
|
18 |
That assumption is only a fallback if not atom mapping for a format can |
19 |
be found. You have a better fallback strategy? |
20 |
|
21 |
> 6) This breaks _all_ syncing for users who have overlays but lack the |
22 |
> format versions file. That's a massive no go, you don't break |
23 |
> compatibility introducing compatibility checks (nor do you piss off |
24 |
> several thousand overlay using users for questionable gain). |
25 |
|
26 |
Reread the code, missing format_version raises a warning, nothing else |
27 |
(for now). |
28 |
|
29 |
> 7) even cooler, say you're running max visible portage, and using an |
30 |
> overlay that lacks a format_version file. With the vdb portage |
31 |
> lookup, it'll tell the user that they need a version later then the |
32 |
> max version. Nice way to get people to test package masked portage's, |
33 |
> but it still is wrong. |
34 |
|
35 |
see above. |
36 |
|
37 |
> 8) (minor) output of todo is going to be fugly if anyone uses actual |
38 |
> atom constructs, boolean ORs fex (the print implicitly assumes it's |
39 |
> just a list of atoms without any boolean constructs). |
40 |
|
41 |
Yeah, if anyone want to take a shot to convert it to feed the list into |
42 |
the depresolver feel free. |
43 |
|
44 |
> 9) the attempted check to see if a pkg is in the passed in myfiles |
45 |
> won't work if myfiles holds atoms; eg, |
46 |
> myfiles, pkg = [">=sys-apps/portage-2.0.54"], "sys-apps/portage" |
47 |
> assert pkg not in myfiles |
48 |
|
49 |
reread the code, we're only comparing the keys (still not perfect, but |
50 |
covers your case). |
51 |
|
52 |
> 2) It's overengineered. There is _no_ reason to hit up a webserver |
53 |
> just to get atoms; that data can be bundled in the tree in a seperate |
54 |
> file. As is, this breaks users who sync without a connection without |
55 |
> any gain. Realistically, I'd be surprised if any alt package managers |
56 |
> go this route (I know I won't be hitting a webserver up for pkgcore). |
57 |
|
58 |
a) it's a fallback if the system and tree don't have a depmap |
59 |
b) it doesn't break |
60 |
c) it doesn't matter what other package managers will do |
61 |
|
62 |
> 3) What the portage project thinks a repo tree needs does not map to |
63 |
> what my tree may need. Clarifying, format 1 specifies portage xyz and |
64 |
> bash-3 (ebuilds in the tree use bash regex). My personal tree needs |
65 |
> portage xyz (manifest/layout changes), but requires just bash-2. With |
66 |
> the central db approach, portage will assume my tree is valid via the |
67 |
> version #, and if the number differs, it'll assume that I require |
68 |
> bash3 when in reality, my tree is bash-2 and up. This points to why |
69 |
> the format -> depends mapping should be bundled with the tree. |
70 |
|
71 |
See above. |
72 |
|
73 |
> 4) portage-2.0 portage-2.1 are bad names for tree formats. Back to |
74 |
> the EAPI int discussion, but I really don't see any gain in string |
75 |
> names, regardless the 2.0/2.1 sucks as a descriptive name (subjective |
76 |
> I realize) :) |
77 |
|
78 |
Well, in the end you need a format->feature map, and these names simply |
79 |
have that mapping implicit in a way. |
80 |
|
81 |
> Requiring folks to jam a file with a random string in it in |
82 |
> each of their overlays also sucks, ways to make that less sucky would |
83 |
> be advisable. |
84 |
|
85 |
s/Requiring/Recommending/ |
86 |
Ideally we could detect if an overlay is local or from a third party, |
87 |
and only perform checks for the latter, but that's not doable atm. |
88 |
Zac: The error-on-missing was your idea, feel free to defend it. |
89 |
|
90 |
Marius |
91 |
-- |
92 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |