From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20784 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2004 15:58:42 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 28 Nov 2004 15:58:42 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1CYRRi-00081F-9R for arch-gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:58:42 +0000 Received: (qmail 11280 invoked by uid 89); 28 Nov 2004 15:58:41 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-portage-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail Reply-To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 13101 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2004 15:58:40 +0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=Kwqzk6AKKPYG+2kmn9qjLfBA17GJTA+qYvPGFpLH6oRK6IIqHdHifS3WnQXDEoWjBDxxD74vUBYgzhrqzFj2qWGMYZU0O4ZVp/ij0tRYunBJXERvdnXPwkksWT4xXUV/TnC7InwKpMWTdOGvu5K+8KQ1NcSzSHkRbfQTYinCbZM= Message-ID: <9f2790160411280758421e9283@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 06:58:40 -0900 From: Allen Parker Reply-To: Allen Parker To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <1101622687.13829.2.camel@newkid.milsson.nu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable References: <9ef20ef3041127151046107fb5@mail.gmail.com> <1101622687.13829.2.camel@newkid.milsson.nu> Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Current portage well designed, but badly used X-Archives-Salt: 955f7861-702a-41ef-bd2d-42cb5b19c1c2 X-Archives-Hash: a2ade24454bfc48a387df9645a8f6ad7 On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 07:18:06 +0100, John Nilsson wrote: > On s=F6n, 2004-11-28 at 05:44 +0000, Ed Grimm wrote: > > There may be others which are more problematic. I haven't seen Gentoo > > using them, but many kernels are distributed with -[a-z][a-z]\d+ > > versions, which indicate which alternate maintainer managed the > > additional patches beyond the standard kernel version - which is newer, > > -mm5 or -bk15? The world may never know. (It's only determinate for > > specific kernel versions, and frequently it's an apples and lemonade > > comparison, as they don't address the same issues.) >=20 > Would it be to much overhead if the ebuilds just linked to previous > versions instead? Like the ineed stuff of the init scripts. This way no > no version parsing at all would be needed. >=20 > -John the big probem with that, john is that "stale" ebuilds are removed often... also from apache-1.3.27 -> apache-2.0.41 there's a pretty HUGE difference in how the packages are actually compiled/treated/options, etc... for another example, look at the php5 vs the php4 ebuilds... see a difference? it doesn't make sense to do what you are thinking because as soon as a new version comes out that obsoletes the old one with new features, etc you end up having to hack ALL of your ebuilds to support the new features and you're in the same place you were before. Another thing you should look at, is eclasses... webapp.eclass especially since it's pretty widely used. eclasses do what i think you'd want to accomplish with the linking to previous versions setup. Oh, and by the way, version parsing isn't something that can be easily avoided. see above on why "world + dog =3D same version" is a bad idea. off list, when i wake up tomorrow, i'll email you a snippet of conversation i had with johnm about eclasses last nite in #gentoo-dev... it might be enlightening. my .02 of a monetary unit.=20 Allen Parker --=20 ________________________________________ To avoid being added to my spam filter: 1. Utilize list replies unless otherwise requested. 2. If you DO send me a personal email, use english. 3. HTML isn't cute. It belongs on the web, not in my inbox. -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list