From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11091 invoked from network); 25 Jul 2004 11:30:44 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 25 Jul 2004 11:30:44 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BohDI-0005ET-6b for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 25 Jul 2004 11:30:44 +0000 Received: (qmail 31109 invoked by uid 89); 25 Jul 2004 11:30:43 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 9451 invoked from network); 25 Jul 2004 11:30:42 +0000 In-Reply-To: <200407251342.09843.jstubbs@gentoo.org> References: <200407251150.50056.jstubbs@gentoo.org> <180D5EB6-DDEC-11D8-B5A6-000D93283962@gentoo.org> <200407251342.09843.jstubbs@gentoo.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <107B2834-DE2E-11D8-B5A6-000D93283962@gentoo.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, Pieter Van den Abeele From: Pieter Van den Abeele Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 13:30:43 +0200 To: Jason Stubbs X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] macos mess X-Archives-Salt: ade4a98b-024e-474a-8475-ce06653cc973 X-Archives-Hash: 6d770f9b4b916f478b7bdbbb6f3525e8 Hi, I think this mail is more about portage-ng than portage, so I'll explain why we have that project, how I see the project, and what to expect from it. I've nothing against portage or any other package manager out there. One thing that does make portage different from other package managers is that it's still under development. Features are added on a per case basis. Portage-ng is an experiment in the sense that we didn't take portage and added a few features. We Looked at all the requirements, made a design and coded something that basically does what portage is required to do, only different. I'm not going to explain all the differences etc yet, the idea is to publish the code, a paper and allow people (not necessarily only gentoo) reuse the idea, code, or the entire product. It does solve some problems that are currently difficult to solve in portage. Best regards, Pieter Van den Abeele On 25 Jul 2004, at 06:42, Jason Stubbs wrote: > On Sunday 25 July 2004 12:38, Pieter Van den Abeele wrote: >> It's a glep. The pathspec glep. >> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/macos-1.xml > > "It covers all known relevant areas except cross-platform dependency > coherency > issues." These are the issues that are happening now due to jumping > the gun. > >> I can forward all email I have about to you if you like. Might be >> interesting to read it and get a better idea about it. > > No, thanks. Just get the implementation details of the aforementioned > glep > completed, get the glep approved and I give you my word that it'll be > imlemented. > >>>> It's a relatively simple feature compared to the other requirements >>>> I >>>> have for a next generation portage. >>> >>> So you're planning to fork the project? >> >> No I'm not. An experimental prototype yes. >> Anyway, keep tuned. > > "Next generation portage" implies throwing away the current portage. > If it's > an experimentatl prototype to help with the current portage, do you > have a > roadmap on how it is to be integrated? How about a list of features? I > can > guarantee you that I am personally working on some of them and so we > have > needless duplication of effort. If your work is truly intended to > benefit the > current portage, why is it so closed? > >>>> What MacOS is doing right now is moving forward and identifying all >>>> MacOS related issues, creating bug reports for them and we try to >>>> do our >>>> best finding both long term and short term solutions. We can't >>>> afford to >>>> be put on hold for another year, unfortunately. >>> >>> I've been an official developer for just over five months, and have >>> been working on portage and hanging out in #gentoo-portage and on the >>> gentoo-portage-dev list for about nine months yet I haven't heard any >>> discussion whatsoever about what is required to support portage on >>> macos. THAT is what has held it up for a year. >> >> Oh well, macos is here now. Let's start doing things now. Whether or >> not you heard about it before is not really relevant anymore. Most of >> the stuff is happening now. > > It is completely relevant. Without any advance warning, you have > succeeded at > tripling the pressure on myself and other members of the portage team > to get > things done "now". If you had have spoken up to the relevant projects > about > possible impact, we all could have prepared for it before this "now" > ever > happened. > > I don't know why I (or anybody else) should have to clean up after > you, but > I'll get to work on throwing --inject away completely and replacing it > with > an profile addition (which will be user extendable) that will allow the > ignoring of certain packages during dep resolution. > >> I've been wanting to throw that pathspec thing away and start all over >> again, cause I wrote a comment on it anyway. (I wasn't really >> flattering about the ugly code at the bottom of the glep. I dislike >> nested ifs.). > > This is a QA nightmare. You have this release out there that none of > the > supporting projects were ready for and it sounds like you aren't even > sure > about how to support it yourself. A "deal with it as it happens" > approach is > simply not going to cut it. > >>> Yes, repoman is quite buggy. That is no reason to use it as a >>> scapegoat. >> >> I've written a patch for it. I think others have been more verbose >> about repoman in this thread. Have nothing against it. > > I can guarantee that patch wont be included. To borrow Nick's words, > "I really > dislike special cases." > >>>>>> 2. make repoman macos aware >>>>> >>>>> s/make repoman macos aware/include support in ALL of portage/ >>>> >>>> That's the plan. There will be code, no worry. But until there's >>>> code, >>>> we use the cleanest possible short-term solution for various issues. >>> >>> Again, by forking? >> >> no. We do currently maintain a small patchset to make portage work >> under osx. We are working on making that patchset clean and will >> submit >> it to you guys in different reviewed bits and pieces. > > This, too, should have been done before any release was made. > >>>> When I openened the bug about persistent packages, somebody masked >>>> it >>>> as a DUP for a bug numbered somewhere between 11000 - 12000 (we're >>>> at >>>> 54000 right now). I'm assuming similar feature requests have been >>>> waiting for some time. >>> >>> Please give bug numbers. I want the facts first-hand. >> >> My bug was marked as a dup for >> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11697 > > I can't check it now as bugs is down, but I hope that the profile > addition I > mentioned above will solve it. > > Regards, > Jason Stubbs > > -- > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list