On 22 January 2015 8:50:29 PM AEST, Bruce Schultz <brul...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >On 22 January 2015 7:20:07 PM AEST, Sam Bishop <sam@cygnus.email> >wrote: >>On 22 January 2015 at 17:00, Neil Bothwick <n...@digimed.co.uk> wrote: >>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 16:43:32 +0800, Sam Bishop wrote: >>> >>>> I'll quote from the binpkg docs: >>>> >> Next to these, portage will check if the binary package is built >>>> >> using the same USE flags as expected on the client. If a package >>is >>>> >> built with a different USE flag combination, portage will either >>>> >> ignore the binary package (and use source-based build) or fail, >>>> >> depending on the options passed on to emerge >>>> >>>> So I'm fairly sure that implies they can coexist based on the >>>> directory structure. - >>>> http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Binary_package_guide#The_PKGDIR_layout >>> >>> The package name is the same as the ebuild name but with a .tbz2 >>> extension, so how could portage cope with multiple variants with >>> different USE flags when there is only one name? There can be only >>one >>> package per ebuild and either the USE flags match exactly or they do >>not. >>> >>> You could get away with this with a limited set of profiles by >having >>a >>> different $PKGDIR for each profile but to do it with random >>combinations >>> would require some sort of middleware to handle the requests and >>place >>> the specified packages where portage expects to find them. >>> >>> I think the check for USE flags is done using the IUSE and USE >>settings >>> in the package metadata, so even if a USE flag you don't use is >added >>to >>> an ebuild, the package will no longer match. ISTR having to hack >>metadata >>> in /var/db in the past to avoid a rebuild of *Office. >>> >> >>Thank you kindly Neil. You rephrasing what was right in front of my >>face in the docs finally lead to the lightbulb going off. Happens to >>all of us I suppose. The pkdir layout diagram isn't implying multiple >>versions of a single package, it is referring to multiple packages >>with a numeric shorthand. So this would require middleware, wrappers, >>or improvements to portage to cope with having overlapping packages >>like this. So interim functionality could be achieved with separate >>bin hosts directories for each of the baseline profiles with their >>default use flags. Once the infrastructure was stable then work could >>be undertaken to build some kind of wrapper, or enhancement to >>portage. > >There was a discussion recently on the portage-dev list regarding >storing multiple versions with different use flags in a pkgdir. There's >an open bug in bugzilla too, I believe, but I cannot find the reference >right now; if I can I'll follow up. > >I think the summary was that the Packages file is able to index >multiple versions of a package, but the tooling to create and manage >packages needs some improvement. (Don't quote me on that though!)
Found it http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.portage.devel/5031 https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=150031 -- :b
