| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Seemant Kulleen wrote: |
| 5 |
> This issue is certainly a dicey one. I don't think there is an easy to |
| 6 |
> define answer. It has always been assumed that a portage rewrite |
| 7 |
> (whether it were a third party reimplementation in a !python language, |
| 8 |
> or pkgcore/paludis or portage-ng) would just fit right into the tree, |
| 9 |
> without making changes of any kind at all. So I think the question that |
| 10 |
> we need to answer is *what* changes are necessary to the profiles and |
| 11 |
> *why* -- or I suppose, why would paludis/pkgcore need to have its own |
| 12 |
> profile? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I think it would be a lot easier to see what it is that needs this sort |
| 15 |
> of change before we can make an informed call about it. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Yeah, I think what's really needed is a specification of what is allowed in gentoo's official portage tree. Let's take "per-package use.mask" (bug 96368) as an example. It could be implemented as package.use.mask or as package.mask + use deps. Which will it be? Will paludis, pkgcore, and portage all handle this functionality the same way or not? If we're going to allow new features such as this into the official portage tree, we need to make sure that they conform to a specification that everyone has agreed upon. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Zac |
| 20 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 21 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
iD8DBQFEak4V/ejvha5XGaMRAsiAAJ94mIvX/fbb98ng47nQ2N5TiESbfwCfRIM1 |
| 24 |
M4k5bburtTHPKzsTeWALXZU= |
| 25 |
=q09w |
| 26 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-qa@g.o mailing list |
Archives