| 1 |
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 08:38:10 +0100 |
| 2 |
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Multiply number of dep types (build, run, install, compile against, |
| 4 |
> > post, probably more) by number of requirement levels (required, |
| 5 |
> > suggested, recommended) by number of ABI combinations by number of |
| 6 |
> > system combinations by whatever else ends up being useful. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I'm against suggested and recommended. I don't like it in debian and I |
| 9 |
> won't like it in gentoo. the rest shouldn't interest an ebuild by |
| 10 |
> itself but should be handled by the package manager. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
The package manager can't. It needs to be told -- there's no way to |
| 13 |
guess up front (or, indeed, after the fact) what dependencies really |
| 14 |
are. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> bad users of tools are always present, by itself autotools gives |
| 17 |
> support and usually works out of box. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
No, autotools doesn't give support. It doesn't, for example, have any |
| 20 |
way of generating source files using a program that's part of the |
| 21 |
package that requires a library that's part of the package. The sad |
| 22 |
fact is, no matter how you use autotools in non-trivial cases you'll |
| 23 |
end up breaking *something*, and cross compiling is the least visible |
| 24 |
thing to break. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> > Tree branching will very quickly become unmanageable. Users will be |
| 27 |
> > forced to choose a branch, but useful features will be spread across |
| 28 |
> > different branches. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Only if you don't manage it correctly. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> I know what I'm doing on linux and it is _quite_ branched. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
That's because things get merged in quickly... |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives