| Summary: | app-portage/gentoolkit: Split gentoolkit into separate packages and make gentoolkit a meta ebuild | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Portage Development | Reporter: | C. Wijtmans <cj.wijtmans> |
| Component: | Third-Party Tools | Assignee: | Portage Tools Team <tools-portage> |
| Status: | CONFIRMED --- | ||
| Severity: | enhancement | CC: | mgorny, tove |
| Priority: | Normal | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
|
Description
C. Wijtmans
2011-11-23 14:31:34 UTC
As someone that just recently spent a bunch of time, work on equery and several others in gentoolkit. Separating equery from gentoolkit is not going to happen. At least not any time soon. It may have been easier to separate it out before the major re-writes & performance improvements that were performed for the -0.3* series. Most of the code has been reworked to update improve and unify many of the gentoolkit tools and to eliminate duplicate/similar code. As for migrating equery features to eix. You would need to file an enhancement bug for eix. It is not as simple as you might think. Equery is python based and gets much of it's information directly from portage, on your live installed database. Eix on the other hand is written in c or c++ (I don't recall atm). It gathers it's information independent of portage and only updated periodically. As Brian noted, this probably is not going to happen anytime soon. However, I will leave the bug open as an enhancement request. There have been thoughts in the past about making gentoolkit a meta package that pulls in separate packages that contain the various utilities. i can sort of understand the basis of this request, but i don't think it's worthwhile. gentoolkit in total is way less than 1 MiB. we're honestly quibbling over that ? The only real reason I see to actually do this is for maintaining the various utilities. With the utilities split out to different packages, you could fix/release on different schedules. Other than that I see no real reason to do this. is there any real problems with simply releasing gentoolkit more often ? the release package isn't huge either. (In reply to comment #5) > is there any real problems with simply releasing gentoolkit more often ? Other than manpower, there isn't any reason. I actually think that you and I are in agreement. I'm going to leave the bug open for now just in case anyone else comes up with a compelling reason to actually do this. *** Bug 393211 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** |
