From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DATE_IN_PAST_12_24, DMARC_MISSING,INVALID_DATE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from janus.prosalg.no ([213.236.139.1] helo=io.adm.prosalg.no) by cvs.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 3.30 #1) id 162Aa3-0001gK-00 for gentoo-dev@cvs.gentoo.org; Fri, 09 Nov 2001 05:16:19 -0700 Received: from b223a.studby.ntnu.no ([129.241.126.223] helo=motvind) by io.adm.prosalg.no with asmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 162APg-0005dh-00 for ; Fri, 09 Nov 2001 13:05:36 +0100 From: Karl Trygve Kalleberg To: gentoo-dev@cvs.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] portage v2 Message-Id: <20011109141437.4d467f17.karltk@prosalg.no> In-Reply-To: <20011108225724.B51315@plato.zk3.dec.com> References: <20011108225724.B51315@plato.zk3.dec.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.6.2 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@cvs.gentoo.org Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@cvs.gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@cvs.gentoo.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: gentoo-dev@cvs.gentoo.org X-Reply-To: karltk@gentoo.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Gentoo Linux development list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri Nov 9 05:17:02 2001 X-Original-Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 14:14:37 +0100 X-Archives-Salt: 3a19433f-ece4-46db-9745-c48c6432a52d X-Archives-Hash: b9e7e88ac52bedfceb1ab6861ef1db7a On Thu, 8 Nov 2001 22:57:24 -0500 Chris Houser wrote: > I don't know if the discusion of the recently begun portage v2 rewrite > deserves it's own list or not, but I thought I'd start discussing it > here, and we can decide later if we need to move it. Here would be nice for now to let people know that active work is done on portage, and that comments (and later on patches!) are always welcome. > For any gentooers haven't heard about v2, please be aware that it is > only just beginning. I'm sure the current portage will go through many > new releases before the v2 codebase is ready. As usual, developers and users shouldn't hold their breath. The current portage has the perk that it actually works ;) > I think I like the proposed new dependency syntax. It doesn't seem as > flexible as another that was proposed earlier on this list (by karltk? > sorry, don't remember). Are there good reasons to use this less > flexible scheme, such as readability or something? Or is my premise > incorrect? > > Is there a reason to not use "1.0-*" instead of introducing another > special char in the syntax, "~1.0"? IMNSHO the depency syntax (and consequently its semantics and implementation) should be discussed thoroughly. I really want a flexible scheme that's easy to use _and_ scales. By this I mean that it should be trivial to specify trivial dependencies, and eminently possible to specify really complex dependencies. The more flexible syntax I proposed earlier (yes, you remembered correctly), was intended to solve the latter part; making it possible to specify complex dependencies. I will see if I can't work out a complete proposal for some kind of "unified syntax" (I guess Rational will sue me now) this weekend. > Ok, I guess that's all I have at the moment. I suppose we should start > discussing how to split up the work that needs to be done. Maybe > drobbins will just tell us each what to do. :-) Now you assume he has time between writing articles, job hunting, maintaining his baby and helping newbies on the channel ;) > Oh, I think we should start writing test code for these new classes > immediately, and maintain them as we go along. I think python has some > good support for regression test sorts of things, but I'm not very > familier with it yet. Better go read... :-) Read the XP books lately, have you ? ;p Karl T