From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EAFJA-000724-SF for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 23:14:25 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j7UNBiuc013210; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 23:11:44 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j7UNBhhm009676 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 23:11:44 GMT Received: from cpe-65-26-255-237.wi.res.rr.com ([65.26.255.237] helo=nightcrawler) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1EAFIf-0008SE-Md for gentoo-osx@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 23:13:53 +0000 Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:13:37 -0500 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-osx@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-osx] Re: [RFC] Separate alt-prefix repo for base-system packages. Message-ID: <20050830231337.GM13987@nightcrawler> References: <4310DBE6.5040305@gentoo.org> <4312BA20.4000504@gentoo.org> <2134124F-DB37-4FFC-9F76-C75BC62B0A7F@gentoo.org> <20050830032607.GI13987@nightcrawler> <20050830130758.GA30652@nightcrawler> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-osx@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-osx@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="pFpMklMRdxwSC3Yi" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: fdb5ef24-544b-4568-926b-dfe5a995229e X-Archives-Hash: b902a5a48fbcb59fa17c4238706eef24 --pFpMklMRdxwSC3Yi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 01:32:04AM +1000, Finn Thain wrote: > > > > Reasoning is, how do you know that pkg xyz is actually the package= =20 > > > > you're after? > > Re-inserted the quote to clarify what I'm talking about; mapping anothe= r=20 > > pkg managers db into our own requires either a lot of human=20 > > intervention, or some dodgy rules that somewhat manage it, with bugs. >=20 > OK, I see what you mean. You're asking, how does portage know that vendor= =20 > package xyz is the portage package abc? >=20 > Short answer is package.mask, meta-packages and name mapping. >=20 > A particular vendor package version is a known-good dep, as tested by=20 > devs, otherwise it is masked. E.g. package.mask says > >vendor-sun/app-arch/cpio-x.y.z if no higher version has been tested. In > mac os, automated updates mean that most of the time, there will be some= =20 > vendor packages that the tree hasn't been tested against. These have to b= e=20 > masked until the user does emerge sync. Alright, so I'm just being a tool 'coz I thought you were talking=20 about dynamic mapping (vs dev managed mappings). Nevermind me :) > BTW, do repos share a namespace? Presented with the same cpv in several= =20 > repos, is portage's behaviour defined yet? repo's have their own *total* namespace now; an overlay + repo is=20 different though since an overlay is slaved to a repo. <=3D2.1 basically lacks any true support for N repos; you can have a=20 portdir(+overlays), a vdb, and a bintree. Rewrite has no such=20 restriction built into it. > My feeling is that the burden of managing the mappings is better than the= =20 > burden of managing one package.provided for mac os 10.3, alongside anothe= r=20 > for 10.4, etc. (If I'm wrong about that, then this exercise is pointless.) Actually, I agree; it's cleaner then just autoassuming stuff is there. > Did I read something about the rewrite being modular? Could the shim/quer= y=20 > take the form of a portage plugin that implements the query-apple-package= s=20 > feature? Obviously, if implemented the way I descibed above, it would nee= d=20 > to be intimate with certain ebuilds' environments. Well, considering I'm seriously considering when/if rewrite is=20 released, it's released as two packages; portage-core, and=20 portage-ebuild... yes. Very modular. There pretty much is one point of required entry into the code;=20 getting the config obj- from there it loads the code it needs,=20 instantiating objects on the fly. Aside from the entry point/config=20 obj, everything else is intended to be configurable. ~harring --pFpMklMRdxwSC3Yi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDFOghvdBxRoA3VU0RAiCoAJ9x8mcHDhfPWTYKfJdfogI5yO4IswCeI9gP qqfrc/Hw8LJOfz542C0sBOA= =t+xu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pFpMklMRdxwSC3Yi-- -- gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list