>
> I think flow's idea to make the sync command configurable somehow
> would be sufficient, assuming there is demand for it.

I agree.
I'm glad Flow has their ideas straight.

By the way Flow, could you share the links of the repo/PR so that we can
follow the development along? I would love to see it! ^_^

I'm not quite certain what you mean by "module" here, but that sounds
> like unnecessary extra abstraction.
>

I think my line of thought was a bit overkill.
Not to mention that I am not that well versed (if at all)
with portage's implementation detail.

PS: I forgot to mention this in the original email, but I did file a
bug with this feature request. https://bugs.gentoo.org/907959


El mié, 21 jun 2023 a las 14:46, Mike Gilbert (<floppym@gentoo.org>)
escribió:

> On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 12:47 PM TOMAS FABRIZIO ORSI <torsi@fi.uba.ar>
> wrote:
> > I had not considered that possibility either. In that case, could not
> the overlay
> > dependency resolution be handled as a module?
> > Said module could be a common interface for different package managers.
> > Then, the execution of said module would be handled on a per package
> manager/sync program basis?
>
> I'm not quite certain what you mean by "module" here, but that sounds
> like unnecessary extra abstraction.
>
> I think flow's idea to make the sync command configurable somehow
> would be sufficient, assuming there is demand for it.
>
>