Re: [gentoo-soc] Multiple Repository Support in Portage - Week 3

[Brian Harring]

On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 10:37:30PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 13:18:21 -0700
> Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote:
> > From pkgcore's view, the 1st ':' is required- if there is no slot
> > dep, leave it empty.  The second demarks the start of a repository
> > dep.
>
> I prefer the "always ::" form, simply because it's easier to go "if
> repo, then add ::repo" than it is to go "if repo, then add :repo, but
> also stick another : in there if we've not done a slot". What a repo
> dep looks like shouldn't change based upon whether there's also a slot
> dep there.

Arguable, but I'll convert pkgcore to the paludis syntax.  Next 
release will have it.


> > @, or some other char that is explicitly disallow seems a better
> > choice.
>
> The rationale behind -> is that it reads clearly. ::from->to reads like
> what it does. Experience has shown that users do need and make use of
> both forms (although unfortunately they're less inclined to appreciate
> the difference between ::installed and ::/ ), so it's best to pick
> something they can eventually understand.

@ carries a similar meaning however; give me 
pkg::src_repo@target_repo .  Reads a bit better imo (I want pkg from 
src_repo that is in target_repo), and also isn't composed of valid 
repository name chars.

Other's opinions on that one would be useful.


> On a semi-related note: real world experience has also shown that every
> time we've thought about using ::repo deps of any kind in a repository
> rather than a user context, it's been the wrong thing to do, and the
> right thing to do is almost always [feature(-)].

Block it at the repo policy level, rather than at the ebuild level- 
you get the same end result, but leave open a door for people who 
fall outside your usecases.

~harring