On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:54:39 -0700 Brian Harring <ferri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 08:58:07PM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:47:33 -0400 > > Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > Based on the above I do expect the reference implementation would also > > > need to change. I expect, for instance, that the PM's > > > metadata-handling would need to occur as normal even though none of > > > the package's phase functions would run, that is, *DEPEND > > > (realistically RDEPEND as that should be the only one affected here, > > > maybe PDEPEND too) and USE/PKGUSE would get updated. Since portage > > > would not be re-emerging the package from the tree the original ebuild > > > would remain. > > > > Yes, unless I'm missing something that's the intent. I will re-read > > and update the GLEP a bit sometime this week. > > There's a fairly strong user interaction component here, along w/ > potential nastyness for ebuilds (the proposal assume that a flag will > be toggable in all cases within an ebuild if IUSE_RUNTIME specified; I > guarantee instances where that fails can be found in the tree if a > basic audit was done). Additionally, this *is* useless if it's done > in a form the UI an't display/handle; Ciaran may bitch about > REQUIRED_USE's UI (which I knew going in was going to be > problematic, just to be clear), but he's right on that front. > > Additionally, this needs to be thought out how it'll interact with > eclasses; what stacking, etc. It doesn't cover the basics there to > say the least. The proposal didn't cover eclasses at all. Is there a need to do so or are we chasing some kind of perfection based on filling all unused slots? > Pretty much, this needs an implementation, partial conversion of the > tree to demonstrate it. > > Just to prove that fricking point; if you had tried implementing this, > a full investigation of what's involved alone, you'd have spotted that > the core of the proposal is based on a wrong assumption. > > Portage doesn't write unfinalized DEPEND/RDEPEND/PDEPEND to the VDB. There's a footnote there, saying: The package manager has to ensure that all relevant information is stored in the installed package metadata. > > > I expect, as a corollary to this, that a rebuild would be necessary if > > > (on-disk-IUSE_RUNTIME xor in-ebuild-IUSE_RUNTIME) was non-empty > > > (--newuse) or resulted in any flags that are in USE > > > (--reinstall=changed-use). IMO this would be necessary to ensure the > > > local ebuild copy and all related metadata for it gets updated in vdb. > > > > I think that's a common package manager logic and it's out of scope > > of the GLEP. > > Portage doesn't do physical updates last I saw- if it did, well, > that's fairly dangerous. Only thing stored in the VDB is the ebuild > and the environment dump, and the environment dump is what's ran from. > > You cannot sanely pick part the dump and try to intermix current > ebuilds; rephrasing, I'll kick in the head anyone who tries that. What are you talking about? As far as I can see, we are talking here about *full rebuild*. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
