[gentoo-portage-dev] portage-ng suggestions collection

[gentoo-portage-dev] portage-ng suggestions collection

[James Harlow]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi everyone, I just thought I'd mention that I'm going to be doing the
collation of the portage-ng suggestions. At the moment I'm trawling
through old threads and picking up all the ideas which I'm roughly
dividing into 5 categories: language, interface, architecture,
functionality, and data-model. As soon as I've got something to show,
I'll post here.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/0kpIHGi0bE7jzmwRAqOoAJ9Fyzn8K7moXl4fxQu3k8hM/5whAwCfSMEN
IaRL5hmXousRdrHVyCs3ciQ=
=2ofS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-ng suggestions collection - improved ebuild code reuse

[Sandy McArthur]

James Harlow wrote:
> Hi everyone, I just thought I'd mention that I'm going to be doing the
> collation of the portage-ng suggestions.

Current ebuilds are resonably modular in that you can often simply 
rename foo-1.0.ebuild to foo-1.1.ebuild to support a new version of the 
package. But this is really code reuse by copy/paste.

Now there is the eclass feature for code reuse between many packages but 
I'd think that a more common oppurtunity for code reuse would be within 
a package between versions.

I think this could save a good amount of bandwidth/disk for the rsync 
mirrors and in the user's portage tree.

Sandy McArthur


--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-ng suggestions collection

[Jason Stubbs]

On Sunday 07 December 2003 06:29, James Harlow wrote:
> Hi everyone, I just thought I'd mention that I'm going to be doing the
> collation of the portage-ng suggestions. At the moment I'm trawling
> through old threads and picking up all the ideas which I'm roughly
> dividing into 5 categories: language, interface, architecture,
> functionality, and data-model. As soon as I've got something to show,
> I'll post here.

New one for the functionality/data-model.

USE flags need to be able to be grouped into 'super-USE' flags. For example: 
"multimedia", "workstation", "server", etc.
where "multimedia" = "video-codecs", "audio-codecs", "media-recording", etc.
where "video-codecs" = "avi", "divx", "dvd", etc.

Reasoning: It will allow the Linux newbie to average user to customize there 
system to there needs without having to research cryptic flags such as "mad" 
and "xv".

USE flags should only be filed into one of the decided (sub-)categories. For 
example, "dvd" should not be implied by both "video-codecs" and 
"media-recording".

Reasoning: If a USE flag can only belong to one category, it will also enforce 
cleaner distinction of USE flag meanings when applied to ebuilds.


Regards,
Jason Stubbs

--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-ng suggestions collection

[Björn Michaelsen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 625 bytes --]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


> USE flags need to be able to be grouped into 'super-USE' flags. 
I second that. Especially with the discussion about per-package USE-Flags recently on gentoo-dev, some kind of hierarchy might be useful.

- -- 
Björn Michaelsen
pub  1024D/C9E5A256 2003-01-21 Björn Michaelsen <bmichaelsen@gmx.de>
   Key fingerprint = D649 8C78 1CB1 23CF 5CCF  CA1A C1B5 BBEC C9E5 A256
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/1Q7MwbW77MnlolYRAvTtAJ988KpPYJGgSrbqPewDmyY/69wpZACfabHM
zPaHJFhWzcdXwB99HNbUXL4=
=/MKo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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