Re: [gentoo-dev] perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass
ZM == Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org writes: ZM It's called eclass-overrides and it's been mentioned earlier in the thread. But that is useless unless you ignore the metadata cache. And ignoring the metadata cache makes portage unusably slow. It needs to work exacly as I described it. And lets not forget that the current situation is in fact a regression. -JimC -- James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
Re: [gentoo-dev] perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass
ZM == Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org writes: Portage does not need to validate eclass changes. ZM Then how do you propose that it handles metadata changes that are ZM attributed to eclass changes? For example, see the issue they had ZM with vmware.eclass changes in this bug: ZM http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=139134 OK. Let me rephrase. Portage does not need to validate local changes. If a user uses a local eclass to override one in portage or in some remote overlay s/he follows, it is his/er responsibility to update it when the original undergoes major renovation. All portage needs to do is accept that local overrides are more important than anything coming from upstream. And do so w/o making it impossible to use caches for everything which does not have a local override. -JimC -- James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
Re: [gentoo-dev] perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:23:48 -0400 James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com wrote: OK. Let me rephrase. Portage does not need to validate local changes. Sure it does. If it doesn't, and your local changes affect metadata, horrible things happen. If a user uses a local eclass to override one in portage or in some remote overlay s/he follows, it is his/er responsibility to update it when the original undergoes major renovation. Users aren't responsible... -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:23:48 -0400 James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com wrote: OK. Let me rephrase. Portage does not need to validate local changes. Sure it does. If it doesn't, and your local changes affect metadata, horrible things happen. Why not check the mtime on the overlay, if it is older than last sync time, not invalid. If a user uses a local eclass to override one in portage or in some remote overlay s/he follows, it is his/er responsibility to update it when the original undergoes major renovation. Users aren't responsible... And doing everything we can to make them not be isn't going to teach them anything. -- Ciaran McCreesh Steev
