On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 01:49:14PM -0400, Kristian Benoit wrote: > On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 16:38 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: > > > Anyway, I hope you realize that your project doesn't only involve > > hacking on portage, but rewriting almost all of it for the client part. > > Actually I'd rather suggest you start from scratch > > I do agree with that, portage probably need a rewrite/better > modularization anyway. There is/was a project called portage-ng () you > might want to have a look at. I did a little in that direction recently, > and it seems that there is not too many people working on it since > drobbins left, but you can contact Pieter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). I might > get on that too at some point in the future too.
Portage-ng never resulted in anything tangible (read: code), further the doc wasn't really useful for anything then jotting down what's desired. Unless something's changed, that doc should've been yanked down. She's dead, jim. Regarding modularization of portage, it requires that, but fundamentally it requires a rewrite of the core; there is no internal package abstraction, repository abstraction, hell, even a clean config abstraction (let alone cache abstraction). The 2.1 code that was pushed out for inspection addresses the cache issue mostly, and modularization as much as possible. Everything else falls to the rewrite which is underway- I'd suggest contacting portage devs, since what you're after is pretty much what's been designed to allow for, without requiring hacks to portage- just would be plugins. That and help would always be welcome :P ~harring
pgpTyRVwDeVAP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
