>
> 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?

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
>