Re: [gentoo-dev] Eselect repository feature request

[Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org>]

On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 12:49 PM Florian Schmaus <flow@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> 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?

Yes.

>
> > 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.

Sure, that seems sensible.