| 1 |
> You're right, they probably don't. My system will be quite modular and I image |
| 2 |
> a new tree, maybe I'll implement it in the initial release. One concept I'm |
| 3 |
> thinking about is something I call xpack (where xbuild is the extension of |
| 4 |
> ebuilds that should be guaranteed to work with the new parser). This basically |
| 5 |
> is a text based packaging format (like tar, but actually diffeable), that |
| 6 |
> would contain all parts needed for an ebuild (source is optional). Such a file |
| 7 |
> would make things a lot easier to manage and to download on demand. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Totally agree. You can also force a validating commit with cvs : any |
| 10 |
commit would have to pass QA test (parsing) to be really commited. |
| 11 |
But, please consider not using rsync anymore. It's too slow for 85 000 |
| 12 |
files :( |
| 13 |
as previously discuss, subversion would be great. The best way is maybe |
| 14 |
the debian way : Put all xbuilds in a single tar file that would |
| 15 |
downloaded when "emerge update" (example). |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> While my main focus will not be on ondemand downloading of xpacks (ebuilds is |
| 18 |
> pointless) it should be fairly trivial to generate metadata files for the |
| 19 |
> packages contained, maybe even on a category level. The transfer size could |
| 20 |
> still be sizeable though. I believe that introduction of xpack files |
| 21 |
> containing everything needed for an ebuild (except the manifest and |
| 22 |
> metadata.xml) allready reduces the amount of files in the tree enormously. It |
| 23 |
> also helps in being able to easilly remove unused patches ;-). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I like this new portage :) |
| 26 |
So these xbuilds are not needed on end-users computers. They are only |
| 27 |
needed to generate the dependance tree. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
If you need any help on this, please email me. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Philippe |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives