On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 04:13:52PM +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: > - tree generation is dynamic > + easy to move packages around, their category is specified by the > tree configuration, the repository the package lives in doesn't change, > probably overlays, betagarden, graveyard, sunset, etc. can all go > - per package branches > + instead of developing in overlays, simply branches could be used, > such that a single place is sufficient to for each package
Recreating the overlay experience with many repos sounds difficult. Many overlays include multi-component packages or changes to interdependent packages. Using per-package branching instead of overlays would complicate this, with a user (or layman) having to search each package's repository for branches associated with a particular overlay when trying to guess which overlay a package should be pulled from. The current behavior of PORTDIR_OVERLAY is quite well-defined and easier to understand. It even allows overlays to gracefully fall behind in keeping their packages up to date. For example, when a fix in an overlay is committed to gentoo-x86 as a new ebuild revision, the overlay maintainer can forget that he has a stale version of the package without harming anyone because portage chooses the newest package. It seems that the traditional overlay idea -- where overlays overlay gentoo-x86 and eachother -- can't quite exist with per-package branches. To recreate this idea, you'd need to have one checkout per package per repo (including overlays) and you'd still use PORTDIR_OVERLAY. I sorta like how overlays work currently ;-). -- binki Look out for missing or extraneous apostrophes!
pgpkfdJI7hpcw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
