From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MnJdq-0000HC-PO for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 22:03:23 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DDC72E076E; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 22:03:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEF6FE076E for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 22:03:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.22.10] (ip68-4-152-120.oc.oc.cox.net [68.4.152.120]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78BC266D67 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 22:03:23 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4AAEBDA3.1050003@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:03:15 -0700 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090812) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] overlay usage and maintainence [was: DistroWatch and Gentoo packages: status quo and future] References: <4AAAD714.1010107@hartwork.org> <4AACCDBF.5020207@gentoo.org> <4AACD7C5.2080703@gentoo.org> <200909132057.48975.patrick@gentoo.org> <20090913192513.GA26237@anubis.0x90.dk> <4AAD4BF7.8000806@hartwork.org> <20090913210259.1dfb36f7@snowcone> <4AAD534F.3030207@hartwork.org> <20090914150543.395d347d@snowcone> <4AAE8B4A.7080703@hartwork.org> In-Reply-To: <4AAE8B4A.7080703@hartwork.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 55c758b8-c7d6-4c06-8adc-3bc8ed267e54 X-Archives-Hash: 7862ea6881952139cc205fccccd4e9f7 Sebastian Pipping wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> Because an overlay model has only a single foo-1.2. Think of it like >> stacks of paper. You've got your main repository: >> >> ::gentoo foo-1.1 foo-1.2 foo-1.3 >> >> and on top of that you put your overlay: >> >> ::extras foo-1.2 foo-1.4 >> ::gentoo foo-1.1 foo-1.2 foo-1.3 >> >> and then looking down from the top, all an overlay model package >> manager sees is the foo-1.2 from the overlay. There's no >> foo-1.2::gentoo and foo-1.2::extras, there's just a single foo-1.2 >> that's made from (gentoo + extras). > > I see. So it would not work for dependencies but it should work for > masking. That alone wouldn't make me happy, though. > > >> There's a different way of looking at it that focuses more on the >> repository level view at [1]. >> >> [1]: http://ciaranm.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/distributed-distribution-development-and-why-git-and-or-funtoo-is-not-it/ > > Interesting read. Can you think of anything technical that would make > moving portage to this model impossible? It shouldn't be too difficult to tweak portage so that multiple ebuilds of the same version from different repositories are visible to portage's dependency resolver. Currently, it uses a collection of 3 repositories to resolve dependencies: installed, ebuild, and binary packages. Replacing the single ebuild repository (portdbapi class) instance with multiple instances, one for each overlay, should produce the desired result. -- Thanks, Zac