Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

[Franz Fellner <alpine.art.de@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1697 bytes --]

The dlang repository offers a gcc ebuild that adds the patchset to build
the gdc. It's behind a USE-Flag. Still it is exactly the same as
sys-devel/gcc::gentoo besides the additional feature.
But I don't think the dlang repo should mask gcc::gentoo.

2018-03-23 12:18 GMT+02:00 Francesco Riosa <vivo75@gmail.com>:

>
>
> Il 23/03/2018 10:48, Ulrich Mueller ha scritto:
> >>>>>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018, Geaaru  wrote:
> >> for both portage and your fork I think that could be interesting add
> >> an extension to PMS for define inside profiles or targets masking of
> >> packages of a particular repslository. Currently PMS doesn't permit
> >> this but have this feature could be help users to define our
> >> profiles under overlays.
> >> Something like this:
> >> sys-devel/gcc::gentoo
> > Conceptually that makes no sense. sys-devel/gcc is the name of an
> > upstream package, so what does it even mean to mask it in one
> > repository but not in another? If it's the same package, then it
> > should behave in the same way, regardless of the repository its ebuild
> > it hosted in (or the package being installed, in which case it is no
> > longer in an ebuild repository).
> >
> > If it is a different package however, then it should have a different
> > name.
> Sorry to say it bluntly but this make no sense at all, even changing a
> USE flag make the package behave wildly differently.
> Once we agree that an upstream (complex enough) package may have
> different incarnations two ebuilds from different maintainers may please
> differently the user.
> I'm not sure this choice belong to profiles but not because same
> upstream correspond to same files on filesystem.
>
> >
> > Ulrich
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2241 bytes --]