[gentoo-portage-dev] portage and porthole

2005-11-10 Thread Brian
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

2005-11-10 Thread Brian Harring
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

2005-11-10 Thread Brian Harring
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