Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Re: portage-ng roadmap?

["Philippe Lafoucrière" <lafou@wanadoo.fr>]

> You're right, they probably don't. My system will be quite modular and I image
> a new tree, maybe I'll implement it in the initial release. One concept I'm
> thinking about is something I call xpack (where xbuild is the extension of
> ebuilds that should be guaranteed to work with the new parser). This basically
> is a text based packaging format (like tar, but actually diffeable), that
> would contain all parts needed for an ebuild (source is optional). Such a file
> would make things a lot easier to manage and to download on demand.

Totally agree. You can also force a validating commit with cvs : any 
commit would have to pass QA test (parsing) to be really commited.
But, please consider not using rsync anymore. It's too slow for 85 000 
files :(
as previously discuss, subversion would be great. The best way is maybe 
the debian way : Put all xbuilds in a single tar file that would 
downloaded when "emerge update" (example).

> While my main focus will not be on ondemand downloading of xpacks (ebuilds is
> pointless) it should be fairly trivial to generate metadata files for the
> packages contained, maybe even on a category level. The transfer size could
> still be sizeable though. I believe that introduction of xpack files
> containing everything needed for an ebuild (except the manifest and
> metadata.xml) allready reduces the amount of files in the tree enormously. It
> also helps in being able to easilly remove unused patches ;-).

I like this new portage :)
So these xbuilds are not needed on end-users computers. They are only 
needed to generate the dependance tree.

If you need any help on this, please email me.

Philippe

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