On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:28:26 +0200 Sebastian Pipping <webmas...@hartwork.org> wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Because an overlay model has only a single foo-1.2. Think of it like > > stacks of paper. You've got your main repository: > > > > ::gentoo foo-1.1 foo-1.2 foo-1.3 > > > > and on top of that you put your overlay: > > > > ::extras foo-1.2 foo-1.4 > > ::gentoo foo-1.1 foo-1.2 foo-1.3 > > > > and then looking down from the top, all an overlay model package > > manager sees is the foo-1.2 from the overlay. There's no > > foo-1.2::gentoo and foo-1.2::extras, there's just a single foo-1.2 > > that's made from (gentoo + extras). > > I see. So it would not work for dependencies but it should work for > masking. That alone wouldn't make me happy, though.
I don't think it would necessarily work for masking either the way Portage sees it (although iirc it would have done for the way Pkgcore did things). Masking doesn't make foo-1.2::extras invisible, it just makes it visible but unusable. Even if you do take the "ignore masked things entirely" approach, the behaviour's highly weird when things like repository package.masks become involved -- I'm not sure you could define a consistent model that does 'the right thing' purely on overlays (although feel free to try...). > > There's a different way of looking at it that focuses more on the > > repository level view at [1]. > > > > [1]: > > http://ciaranm.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/distributed-distribution-development-and-why-git-and-or-funtoo-is-not-it/ > > Interesting read. Can you think of anything technical that would make > moving portage to this model impossible? Other than the usual problems with moving Portage to things? No. The multiple repository model works fine with Gentoo, and it's possible to set it up so that it looks to the user exactly like an overlay model except where ::repo deps are involved. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
