> > I think flow's idea to make the sync command configurable somehow > would be sufficient, assuming there is demand for it.
I agree. I'm glad Flow has their ideas straight. By the way Flow, could you share the links of the repo/PR so that we can follow the development along? I would love to see it! ^_^ I'm not quite certain what you mean by "module" here, but that sounds > like unnecessary extra abstraction. > I think my line of thought was a bit overkill. Not to mention that I am not that well versed (if at all) with portage's implementation detail. PS: I forgot to mention this in the original email, but I did file a bug with this feature request. https://bugs.gentoo.org/907959 El mié, 21 jun 2023 a las 14:46, Mike Gilbert (<flop...@gentoo.org>) escribió: > On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 12:47 PM TOMAS FABRIZIO ORSI <to...@fi.uba.ar> > wrote: > > I had not considered that possibility either. In that case, could not > the overlay > > dependency resolution be handled as a module? > > Said module could be a common interface for different package managers. > > Then, the execution of said module would be handled on a per package > manager/sync program basis? > > I'm not quite certain what you mean by "module" here, but that sounds > like unnecessary extra abstraction. > > I think flow's idea to make the sync command configurable somehow > would be sufficient, assuming there is demand for it. > >
