| 1 |
On Wednesday 20 June 2012 16:25:30 Richard Yao wrote: |
| 2 |
> Multilib (and/or multiarch) support |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Thomas already has multilib documents put together for review. multiarch |
| 5 |
doesn't make sense for us, and even if it did, there's no way it'd be spec-ed |
| 6 |
out in a reasonable time frame for EAPI=5 (or even 6 or 7 or ...). |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> The current binaries cause a great deal of pain, particularly when a |
| 9 |
> user does not want to upgrade something. I had this problem with WINE |
| 10 |
> and glibc because I wanted to avoid the reverse memcpy() fiasco on my |
| 11 |
> systems. This situation would have been avoided entirely if the package |
| 12 |
> manager supported multilib. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
i don't buy this argument and makes me think when you say "multilib", you |
| 15 |
don't actually mean "multilib". |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> Automated epatch_user support |
| 18 |
> Users should be able to test patches without modifying their ebuilds. |
| 19 |
> This also saves developer time because we don't need to navigate the |
| 20 |
> portage tree (or an overlay), make a change and test it. We could just |
| 21 |
> dump the patch in the appropriate directory and build. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
putting forth an idea is one thing. working out the technical aspects is |
| 24 |
different. this sounds like something destined for EAPI=6: currently, |
| 25 |
epatch_user uses epatch, and that provides a lot of dynamic patch support that |
| 26 |
doesn't fit well with being spec-ed out / encoded in PMS. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> Parallel make checks |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
SGTM |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> POSIX Shell compliance |
| 33 |
> There has been a great deal of work done to give the user full control |
| 34 |
> of what is on his system and there is more that we can do there. In |
| 35 |
> particular, I think a lean Gentoo Linux system should be able to use |
| 36 |
> busybox sh and nothing else. That requires POSIX shell compliance. |
| 37 |
> OpenRC init scripts support this and the configure scripts support this. |
| 38 |
> The few exceptions are bugs that are addressed by the Gentoo BSD |
| 39 |
> developers. As such, I think we should make EAPI=5 use POSIX shell by |
| 40 |
> default. If an ebuild requires bash, we can allow the ebuild to declare |
| 41 |
> that (e.g. WANT_SH=bash), but that should be the exception and not the |
| 42 |
> rule. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
not a chance, and your logic about "choice" really makes no sense in the |
| 45 |
ebuild context. read the archives wrt Roy Maples (sadly) burning out for in- |
| 46 |
depth details as to why this is a no-go. |
| 47 |
-mike |
Archives