Il 18/11/2014 14:12, Jauhien Piatlicki ha scritto:
> On 11/18/2014 04:19 AM, hero...@gentoo.org wrote:
>> Jauhien Piatlicki <jauh...@gentoo.org> writes:
>>
>>> It would be probably good to have in the tree only the core components and
>>> move other stuff to the thematic overlays.
>>>
>>> Then we can have a clear understanding, how things should be: if
>>> something is a part of the core system, it goes to the tree, if
>>> something is a scientific packages, it lives in the science overlay,
>>> if something is a java stuff it lives in the java overlay, etc.
>> This is a good idea. One difficulty: how to handle inter-overlay
>> dependence? Either the dependency should be expressed by overlay +
>> ebuild, or the dependent ebuild should be moved into the "core overlay".
>> I haven't figured out a clean solution yet.
>>
> Yes, this is a weak point of decentralization. We should think how to
> solve it. The possible solution is using of dependencies between
> overlays (one overlay says, it depends on other). We already have such a
> feature, we only need to add more support for it. Example of such a
> dependency:
>
> %cat /var/lib/layman/melpa-stable/metadata/layout.conf
>
> repo-name = melpa-stable
>
> masters = gnu-elpa gentoo
>
> Dependencies on overlays in ebuilds is bad idea I think, as it only will
> introduce additional problems. Also think what if you need not a
> package, but an eclass or whatever else.
>
> In addition, one question that emerges is possible circular dependencies
> between overlays. We need a way to handle this.
As much as I dislike the idea to move development to overlays
circular dependancies is not a problem because it's a simple _mutual_ dep.
there is not really a concept of before and after at most priority for a
package.
