[gentoo-portage-dev] Portage rating in O'Reilly book
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I don't know whether all of you read my blog, but I wanted to make sure you saw this: http://www.livejournal.com/users/spyderous/60809.html?thread=89737#t89737. It's a reply from the author of a book on why he rated our package management at a 4 instead of a 5, and it gives some good ideas on where users feel things could improve. Feel free to ignore the binary packages bit, as that's more of a Gentoo philosophical issue. Thanks, Donnie -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDc5riXVaO67S1rtsRAkWBAJ9QkjDsltO24UrGW9oF2WKNkAL1cACfUDRY OcCUgni8pLJ9CMxN/Bx1fC0= =wOGZ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Portage rating in O'Reilly book
On Thu, 2005-10-11 at 11:09 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I don't know whether all of you read my blog, but I wanted to make sure you saw this: http://www.livejournal.com/users/spyderous/60809.html?thread=89737#t89737. It's a reply from the author of a book on why he rated our package management at a 4 instead of a 5, and it gives some good ideas on where users feel things could improve. Feel free to ignore the binary packages bit, as that's more of a Gentoo philosophical issue. Thanks, Donnie GUI wise, porthole-0.5.0 is much improved over previous versions. It runs very smooth now with hick-ups a rarity. :) All We are waiting for now is some last minute translation updates for it's next release. With all the changes and bug fixes I see in my mail these days, by this time next year things will have improved a whole bunch. Keep up the good work :) -- Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-portage-dev] portage and porthole
Just a quick question. With all the changes I see in this list. Is there anything coming (that you know of) that will break porthole's use of portage. So far I have not experienced any real difficulties. The only hick-up I had was reloading portage after updating to _rc7. Portage failed to find one of it's modules. Restarting porthole, it was fine. Since this version of porthole is so stable I was going to suggest that it is ready for a stable arch keyword. Of course that will depend on your answer to the above question. cheers :) -- Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage and porthole
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 06:42:54PM -0800, Brian wrote: Just a quick question. With all the changes I see in this list. Is there anything coming (that you know of) that will break porthole's use of portage. Long term? I'm unfortunately looking at breaking pretty much all api access portage wise, for 3.0. Short term? Unless you're doing questionable stuff like bypassing the cache layer and accessing the files on disk... nope, shouldn't hork anything. ~harring pgpxz1Stqo4LM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage and porthole
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 09:29:22PM -0800, Brian wrote: On Thu, 2005-10-11 at 20:51 -0600, Brian Harring wrote: On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 06:42:54PM -0800, Brian wrote: Just a quick question. With all the changes I see in this list. Is there anything coming (that you know of) that will break porthole's use of portage. Long term? I'm unfortunately looking at breaking pretty much all api access portage wise, for 3.0. I knew that one. From what I have gathered so far I believe 3.0 is getting the long awaited public API. Is that correct? If so I'll have to start paying more attention to it and setup a test box to start changing our portagelib.py to use it. (I can't afford to trash my main box, I have business stuff on it.) Just let me know when it's time for testing. :) Actually... it's stand alone. I'm working on it alongside stable. It lives in it's own namespace python wise (rather then what stable does), so it doesn't interfere with anything :) Regarding API; yah, something will be there- I haven't thought about a true high level API for it yet, but at least the internal stuff is pretty straightforward- what it should be one things are finished up- domain=portage.config.load_config().default_domain from portage.package.atom import atom p = max(domain.repos.match(atom(dev-util/diffball))) # get the max available version b = p.build() # get a build op b.finalize() # build the sucker domain.vdbs.add(b) Is basically what it will be; the nasty stuff required for stable won't be there, since this is actuall OOP rather then procedural spaghetti. May, or may not layer an API over it, although that's something down the line. Right now working on the v.add chunk. Short term? Unless you're doing questionable stuff like bypassing the cache layer and accessing the files on disk... nope, shouldn't hork anything. ~harring mostly just lookup stuff, get defaults, status, package info, etc.. All emerges are done properly through a terminal and normal command line calls. Yah, nothing that's been talked about should affect querying interfaces. ~harring pgpP1xojMdLXM.pgp Description: PGP signature
