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.

As a matter of fact, Michał Górny raised the same questions:
"A bit of a problem is how to design UI in eselect-repository. I'm not 100% sure

that having it automatically install dependent repositories without confirmation is a good idea"

(https://github.com/projg2/eselect-repository/issues/20#issuecomment-1579288719)

Ideally, confirmation would be asked before proceeding to sync the other overlays.

I agree that doing something without the user's knowledge is not ideal.

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.

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?

Best regards,

- Tomas Fabrizio Orsi

El mié, 21 jun 2023 a las 12:57, Mike Gilbert (<floppym@gentoo.org>) escribió:

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.
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.