On 10/5/05, Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 01:48:03PM -0700, m h wrote: > > On 10/5/05, Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Yay, time for another flame war (just what I'd love to spend my time > > > on). > > > > Sorry, I'm really not trying to kindle any flames here. > Heh, you're not, I'm just mildly pissy due to recurrent flamewars :)
In which case I'm sorry to be the bearer or recurrent touchy subjects ;) > > > So, on the topic of rewrite. Does there happen to be any testcases > > for portage? Unittests, etc? I'd be nice to verify that rewrite > > behaves properly (well, actually I want testcases for selfish reasons, > > so I don't break code if I change anything....) > Niadda. > > Would love it if someone stepped up on that, since I don't > particularly have the time right now :) > Can possibly help out on that, see below... > > > > Do 'em seperate. Those who want interdomain, they can do the work. > > > Those who want global offset, they can do that chunk. > > > > I understand the interdomain stuff to be that prefixed packages can > > depend on packages outside of their prefix? If so, I don't want this > > "feature". I want an isolated sandbox. (Again, I realize others have > > different needs) > Pretty much. Best description is dependencies between root's. > Global prefix (for osx) would either > A) have a vdb for that prefix that represented the package.provided > nodes > B) have a domain for root=/, and do interdomain. > > A is likely route due to it being a helluva lot simpler; B is > better/cleaner (imo), but it requires more work. > Hmmm, I'm not clear yet on the value of interdomain, but I'm sure someone will enlighten me along the way... > > > > So, I figure I'm sortof diving in with Haubi's code (against the > > advice of those wanted a complete spec) since I think my needs seem to > > be the most minimum subset of what others want in this feature. I > > think it's a good way to help me understand the innards of portage > > (though the code is pretty spaghetti right now). I presume you think > > I should start with "rewrite" as a base? What is the current status > > of rewrite? > Rewrite's code is a heck of a lot cleaner; oop based for starters :) > There is some nastyness, but it's encapsulated, and pretty much > required. > > Current state of it is that I'm atm stuck on plugin code, and a slight > change to the config handling code. > > Building/fetching are done, full immutable ebuild tree and vdb are > done, immutable binpkg repository is done sans a package class. > > The mutable thing is basically querying the db; for vdb and binpkg, > they need to be modifiable, able to add a package to the repository > (merging). I'm working on that atm. > > Jason's doing resolver work, state of that I can't comment on (that's > his thing). > > ebuild*sh side of it's already done- if you were looking to test out > prefix building (experiment) I'd probably start there. > OK, so since I have a deadline (end of next week) I'd like to have a simple prototype working. IE me running apache on FC4 with portage. If I can do that then it's very likely that I'll be able to devote a bit of time towards working on this (where this could be rewrite) (bug fixes, polishing it up, unittests, etc). On that note, I need to know what the timeframe for rewrite is. If it's to a state where I can work with it then maybe I should try and start from there. But I'm assumming it will be easier/quicker to get haubi's stuff working. -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
