Re: [gentoo-dev] Support for multiple ABIs (for Python modules etc.)

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

2009-08-01 20:10:49 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 12:28:44 +0200
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever@g.o> wrote:
> > I would like to present the plan of support for multiple ABIs. It
> > should be sufficient for Python modules and might be also appropriate
> > for some other ABI types (e.g. for Ruby modules).
>
> How do you plan to handle the intersection of ABIs? What if you have to
> build or depend upon a Python module for both 32 and 64 bit ABIs, and
> for both 2.5 and 2.6? What if you have a package that provides both
> Ruby and Python code, where the two ABIs are independent rather than a
> product?

The proposition already handles these cases. Please describe in more details what you don't
understand.

> > 4.1. Implicitly specified ABI dependencies. During calculation of
> > dependencies of given package, Portage will verify if all
> > dependencies, which use given ABI type, have been built with enabled
> > support for these ABIs, which are enabled for given package.
>
> How do you say "I need only a single ABI for this, even though it looks
> like I need every ABI I'm built with"? For example, if your Python
> module, being built for 2.5 and 2.6, runs (but does not use in a
> library sense) a Python program that comes as part of a Python package
> that is buildable with multiple ABIs?

In such case a Python package, which is a dependency of another Python package, shouldn't
be marked as supporting multiple Python ABIs. But anyway I suggest the following syntax:
  category/package_name{python[*]}

> > 4.2. Explicitly specified ABI dependencies. {,P,R}DEPEND variables
> > will support specifying ABI dependencies in explicit way.
> > {,P,R}DEPEND variables will also support ABI conditionals. I suggest
> > using {ABI_type[comma-delimited values]} syntax, but it can be
> > changed.
>
> I think we're trying to avoid introducing new special characters if we
> can get away with using existing ones. You can overload [] and existing
> conditionals if you're careful.

The syntax suggested by me looks better for this purpose.

> Having said that, you can probably do everything you described slightly
> less elegantly just using things that're already in EAPI 3.

Not everything.

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis