Re: [gentoo-dev] Random items I'd like to discuss

[Luca Barbato]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> You can't sensibly have backwards compatibility across new deps if all
> the requested options are implemented anyway -- there's no exact
> mapping between the current three vars and all the new ones. New deps
> has to be an EAPI change, and it has to be an ebuild change.

for the ones I pointed it is ^^;

> And the other problem -- we'd be talking hundreds of variables.

hundreds -> bad, no matter what.

> Multiply number of dep types (build, run, install, compile against,
> post, probably more) by number of requirement levels (required,
> suggested, recommended) by number of ABI combinations by number of
> system combinations by whatever else ends up being useful.

I'm against suggested and recommended. I don't like it in debian and I
won't like it in gentoo. the rest shouldn't interest an ebuild by itself
but should be handled by the package manager.

>> every autostuff ebuild should and that's a start.
>
> Except that autotools doesn't have any sane way of handling chost /
> cbuild / ctarget for non-trivial packages. If you want to do something
> simple like generate a file using a program you make at compile time,
> you're forced to resort to nicking insane hackery from the gcc build
> system -- or you can do what most people do and just break non-native
> compiles. Using autotools does not mean supporting chost / cbuild /
> ctarget properly...

bad users of tools are always present, by itself autotools gives support
and usually works out of box.

> Tree branching will very quickly become unmanageable. Users will be
> forced to choose a branch, but useful features will be spread across
> different branches.

Only if you don't manage it correctly.

I know what I'm doing on linux and it is _quite_ branched.

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list