On Monday 12 December 2005 09:20, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:11:53 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > | Regardless of what you think about the current plans for multiple > | repository support, the details that readers will need to know wont > | change. > > Incorrect. Right now, readers should ignore news-blah.unread and only > pay attention to news.unread. Readers will have to be updated to deal > with multiple repositories whenever the multiple repositories GLEP is > approved.
Incorrect. There needs to be no GLEP regarding multiple repository support in portage. There may need to be a GLEP regarding splitting up the portage tree into separate repositories, but that is nothing to do with the issue I'm talking about. > | > | Even before multiple respositories are properly supported, I > | > | guarantee bugs about support for this in portage overlays. With > | > | the above, we would be able to add that support. Without it, all > | > | we can do is put a big CANTFIX. > | > > | > Overlay is not the same as multiple repository support. > | > | There's no difference as far as readers go. > > Sure there is. there's no metadata/ directory in overlays. Again, why I really don't like this design. You're asking portage to do crap to support external tools without looking to provide compatibilty with future portages. How are you planning to find the metadata directory in the first place? > | Nope, which is why news.read shouldn't be specified. > > news.read is specified because there was demand for it the last time > around. It's staying specified because the reasons given were based > upon convincing use cases rather than random speculation. Can you show a use case that crosses several readers? -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
