> > 2. Add a way to use the "real" upstream sources instead of our mirrored > ones
Isn't this eselect repository's default behaviour? Or am I misunderstanding? When I run "eselect repository list" I get the source repositories, not the mirrored ones. Is it using the mirrored one behind the scenes? Best regards, - Tomas Fabrizio Orsi El mié, 21 jun 2023 a las 15:44, Sam James (<s...@gentoo.org>) escribió: > > Florian Schmaus <f...@gentoo.org> writes: > > > [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]] > > On 21/06/2023 17.56, Mike Gilbert wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 11:41 AM Florian Schmaus <f...@gentoo.org> > wrote: > >>> > >>> On 20.06.23 19:26, Mike Gilbert wrote: > >>>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 1:08 PM Florian Schmaus <f...@gentoo.org> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> On 20.06.23 16:41, TOMAS FABRIZIO ORSI wrote: > >>>>>> Isn't that duplicating the information of > metadata/layout.conf's > >>>>>> 'master' key-value pair [1]? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Yes, I agree that it would be duplicating that information. As a > matter > >>>>>> of fact, Michał Górny pointed the same thing out. > >>>>>> However, Michał also added, quote: "What's really lacking here is > >>>>>> support for specifying dependencies via |repositories.xml| > >>>>> > >>>>> Do we need to duplicate the information in repositories.xml, with all > >>>>> the drawbacks of duplication? > >>>>> > >>>>> Can't eselect repository add the new repository, then read the > 'masters' > >>>>> value from layout.conf, and add the missing repositories recursively? > >>>> > >>>> That would be a significant change in behavior for eselect repository. > >>> > >>> Right, but it seems to be a desirable behaviour. Cases where the user > >>> wants to add a repo but not immediately sync it are probably rare. > >>> > >>> Furthermore, it would avoid duplicating the information, which avoids > >>> the typical drawbacks of duplication (e.g., the two sets getting out of > >>> sync). > >>> > >>> I've looked at the eselect-repository code, and it seems not hard to > >>> change the behaviour of "eselect repository add" to add and sync a > >>> repository and then, recursively, add and sync further required > >>> repositories. > >>> > >>> I may give it a shot, but ideally I'd know if it has a chance to be > >>> accepted upstream first. Or maybe there is a good reason why > >>> eselect-repository behaves as it currently does that I am missing? > >> I can't speak for "upstream", but here are my concerns: > >> 1. As a developer, I might just want to create the repos.conf config > >> snippet and sync the repo manually. > >> 2. As a user, I might have any arbitrary reason for not wanting to > >> sync immediately. > > > > Would an opt-out switch be enough to alleviate those concerns of you? > > > > > >> 3. eselect-repository does not currently depend on any particular > >> package manager. It writes config files intended for Portage, but it > >> does not actually invoke any Portage commands. That feels like a > >> significant distinction to me. > >> 4. If you start invoking Portage commands, you then have to deal with > >> the possibility of people using alternate package managers. pkgcore > >> can also utilize Portage's repos.conf, and the user might prefer to > >> use pmaint instead of emaint or emerge --sync. > > > > Those two points seem to be based on the same fundamental concern. > > > > The only portage specific code would be the call to "emaint sync -r > > $repo" (remember that "emerge --sync" is just a wrapper for "emaint > > sync --auto"). I think it would be easy to add later 1. add support > > for different package managers (if the need arises), and 2. make the > > "sync command" user configurable. > > While looking at this, it might be worth evaluating 2 other things > which users have mentioned during the migration away from layman: > 1. Adding a way to fully disable the cache fetching; > 2. Add a way to use the "real" upstream sources instead of our mirrored > ones > > best, > sam >
