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.

- Flow