Re: [gentoo-dev] Eselect repository feature request

[Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4298 bytes --]


TOMAS FABRIZIO ORSI <torsi@fi.uba.ar> writes:

>  2. Add a way to use the "real" upstream sources instead of our mirrored
>  ones
>
>  
> Isn't this eselect repository's default behaviour? Or am I misunderstanding?
> When I run "eselect repository list" I get the source repositories, not the mirrored ones.
> Is it using the mirrored one behind the scenes?

(Please don't top-post.)

No, it uses the mirrores ones with metadata.

>
> Best regards,
> - Tomas Fabrizio Orsi
> El mié, 21 jun 2023 a las 15:44, Sam James (<sam@gentoo.org>) escribió:
>
>  Florian Schmaus <flow@gentoo.org> writes:
>
>  > [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
>  > On 21/06/2023 17.56, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>  >> On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 11:41 AM Florian Schmaus <flow@gentoo.org> wrote:
>  >>>
>  >>> On 20.06.23 19:26, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>  >>>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 1:08 PM Florian Schmaus <flow@gentoo.org> wrote:
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> On 20.06.23 16:41, TOMAS FABRIZIO ORSI wrote:
>  >>>>>>       Isn't that duplicating the information of metadata/layout.conf's
>  >>>>>>       'master' key-value pair [1]?
>  >>>>>>
>  >>>>>>
>  >>>>>> Yes, I agree that it would be duplicating that information. As a matter
>  >>>>>> of fact, Michał Górny pointed the same thing out.
>  >>>>>> However, Michał also added, quote: "What's really lacking here is
>  >>>>>> support for specifying dependencies via |repositories.xml|
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> Do we need to duplicate the information in repositories.xml, with all
>  >>>>> the drawbacks of duplication?
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> Can't eselect repository add the new repository, then read the 'masters'
>  >>>>> value from layout.conf, and add the missing repositories recursively?
>  >>>>
>  >>>> That would be a significant change in behavior for eselect repository.
>  >>>
>  >>> Right, but it seems to be a desirable behaviour. Cases where the user
>  >>> wants to add a repo but not immediately sync it are probably rare.
>  >>>
>  >>> Furthermore, it would avoid duplicating the information, which avoids
>  >>> the typical drawbacks of duplication (e.g., the two sets getting out of
>  >>> sync).
>  >>>
>  >>> I've looked at the eselect-repository code, and it seems not hard to
>  >>> change the behaviour of "eselect repository add" to add and sync a
>  >>> repository and then, recursively, add and sync further required
>  >>> repositories.
>  >>>
>  >>> I may give it a shot, but ideally I'd know if it has a chance to be
>  >>> accepted upstream first. Or maybe there is a good reason why
>  >>> eselect-repository behaves as it currently does that I am missing?
>  >> I can't speak for "upstream", but here are my concerns:
>  >> 1. As a developer, I might just want to create the repos.conf config
>  >> snippet and sync the repo manually.
>  >> 2. As a user, I might have any arbitrary reason for not wanting to
>  >> sync immediately.
>  >
>  > Would an opt-out switch be enough to alleviate those concerns of you?
>  >
>  >
>  >> 3. eselect-repository does not currently depend on any particular
>  >> package manager. It writes config files intended for Portage, but it
>  >> does not actually invoke any Portage commands. That feels like a
>  >> significant distinction to me.
>  >> 4. If you start invoking Portage commands, you then have to deal with
>  >> the possibility of people using alternate package managers. pkgcore
>  >> can also utilize Portage's repos.conf, and the user might prefer to
>  >> use pmaint instead of emaint or emerge --sync.
>  >
>  > Those two points seem to be based on the same fundamental concern.
>  >
>  > The only portage specific code would be the call to "emaint sync -r
>  > $repo" (remember that "emerge --sync" is just a wrapper for "emaint
>  > sync --auto"). I think it would be easy to add later 1. add support
>  > for different package managers (if the need arises), and 2. make the
>  > "sync command" user configurable.
>
>  While looking at this, it might be worth evaluating 2 other things
>  which users have mentioned during the migration away from layman:
>  1. Adding a way to fully disable the cache fetching;
>  2. Add a way to use the "real" upstream sources instead of our mirrored
>  ones
>
>  best,
>  sam


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 377 bytes --]