From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25543 invoked by uid 1002); 5 Jun 2003 07:53:30 -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 26006 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2003 07:53:30 -0000 From: George Shapovalov Organization: Gentoo Linux To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 00:52:34 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.2 References: <20030605144733.317a7b1c.citizen428@cargal.org> <20030605152134.43bff13c.citizen428@cargal.org> In-Reply-To: <20030605152134.43bff13c.citizen428@cargal.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200306050052.35582.george@gentoo.org> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 tagged_above=-100000.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO, QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, REFERENCES, REPLY_WITH_QUOTES, USER_AGENT_KMAIL X-Spam-Level: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] (FS) Attributes for Ebuilds? X-Archives-Salt: 43a96128-01e3-40d7-87a4-5dff19b04fc7 X-Archives-Hash: 216d078728d528f2fea4ea5daebcbeb3 A nice idea it is, however this will basically make portage *require* to have the tree reside on a filesystem that supports ACL's (I suppose you meant this by fs attributes? Otherwise please be more specific). Even forcing allocation of a separate partition to keep portage tree in some cases. This makes it, um, problematic to say the least.. The following point that you mention might offset the "downside": > d. all this benefits without having to force a database as a dependancy > on Gentoo users. however I am not so sure. ACL's provide one with the means to store this "meta" information, however we also need a processing capability. Thus I am not sure that the requirement for db dependency is really eliminated - either portage will depend on db processing engine or it will reimplement the wheel once again :). > Also note that I didn't propose or request this, I was just interested > in some feedback and discussion if/why this is a good/bad approach in > handling this category issue (and others, like if the name of a package > changes you maybe could keep the old name as an attributes). I just > think that Portage is hell of a package managment system and think > discussion about how to further improve it (even my suggestion > may not even be an improvement, but let the people who know > Portage much better than I do clarify this) couldn't hurt. Yup, its a nice try nontheless, and might be worth it further down the timeline, when say ACL's get universally accepted. However right now I am afraid this might be a showstopper :( (we need to think about the whole varietty of platforms we already support or plan supporting). Well, this is just my understanding of the situation anyway and if anybody thinks otherwise (like the requirement isn't that gross and can be tolerated for the most part...) you are certainly welcome to contribute to discussion.. George -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list