[gentoo-dev] Re: metadatabase (was: Dependencies on system packages)

[Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1596 bytes --]

Steve Long wrote:
> Robert Buchholz wrote:

> I understand that it's hard to distinguish a pkg that hasn't been checked,
> but might need the C-compiler, from a pkg that doesn't need the compiler
> but just hasn't been checked. That's where I was going with the database
> stuff.

>> Since the tree itself is the best database of the packages available,
>> anything else would be a lot more overhead.

> I really don't agree, altho I could well be missing something. Surely there
> should be a maintenance/QA database which tracks the tree and where you
> could put information like this (ie a boolean flag for this instance) which
> simply shouldn't be exposed to users. There's no need for it, it doesn't
> effect them, and why should it go in the ebuilds where a maintainer might
> delete it?

I just use a local db to keep track of stuff like this, but haven't
thought of a way to turn this into a service and i don't think it's
really doable.  I think you'd need an entry for every ebuild in portage,
times the number of archs, times an unlimited number of arbitrary fields
(one for each thing you're tracking).  Something like, say, checking
every package in the tree for GPL-2 or GPL-2+ licenses doesn't need the
separate arch entries of course, but stuff like GCC testing definitely does.

Even if you did manage to set this up, I wouldn't want to maintain it.


--
                                        by design, by neglect
dirtyepic gentoo org            for a fact or just for effect
9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]