1 |
Michał Górny schrieb: |
2 |
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 14:09:14 +0200 |
3 |
> Thomas Sachau <tommy@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> Michał Górny schrieb: |
6 |
>>> Hello, |
7 |
>>> |
8 |
>>> I have prepared a first draft of 'dynamic SLOT' specification. This |
9 |
>>> is my proposal in attempt to solve the problem of building packages |
10 |
>>> for multiple Python and Ruby versions. It could also be reused for |
11 |
>>> multilib. |
12 |
>>> |
13 |
>>> The spec tries to explain the broad idea, and all problems relevant |
14 |
>>> to it. It also lists a few problems which are still unsolved and I |
15 |
>>> think they will cause the spec to change after hearing your ideas. |
16 |
>>> |
17 |
>>> To be honest, I tried to keep it as simple as possible. Please don't |
18 |
>>> say it doesn't solve all the world problems because it simply won't. |
19 |
>>> |
20 |
>>> I'm attaching a reStructuredText version of the spec. You can view |
21 |
>>> it rendered as a gist[1]. But please keep the replies on the list, |
22 |
>>> rather than forking the gist. |
23 |
>>> |
24 |
>>> [1]:https://gist.github.com/2943774 |
25 |
>>> |
26 |
>> |
27 |
>> Since you have not responded to my lines in IRC, i will repeat them |
28 |
>> here: |
29 |
>> |
30 |
>> First: How does the user see, which slots are possible and which ones |
31 |
>> are currently active and which are currently not selected? |
32 |
> |
33 |
> Implementation is left to be package-manager specific. I guess colorful |
34 |
> output (similar to USE flags) would be enough. |
35 |
|
36 |
So you dont like my solution with USE flags and then suggest some USE |
37 |
flag like output for your own solution? If you want to use something USE |
38 |
flag like, then simply use USE flags, they already exist. ;-) |
39 |
|
40 |
> |
41 |
>> Beside that, it seems to solve things pretty similar to the proposed |
42 |
>> way in multilib-portage for cross-compiling (which could also be |
43 |
>> adapted for multi-slot languages) with different wording and with |
44 |
>> additional work for ebuild maintainers. And since my proposal already |
45 |
>> uses USE flags, things would not change visually for users of e.g. |
46 |
>> ruby or php. |
47 |
> |
48 |
> I'm sad you aren't even trying to listen. Your attempt implies that |
49 |
> every single change in targets requires rebuilding all of them. If I |
50 |
> weren't using 32-bit libs, and now I want to compile 32-bit wine, I |
51 |
> have to recompile most of my libraries for both ABIs. That is |
52 |
> a no go for me. |
53 |
|
54 |
So you want to build a 32bit package, which is depending on 32bit libs, |
55 |
but want to do that without the needed dependencies? Please tell me, how |
56 |
that works. |
57 |
|
58 |
> |
59 |
> And adjusting that for other multi-slot languages is pointless. Because |
60 |
> they do the same already. |
61 |
> |
62 |
|
63 |
So you dont like one framework for all multi-slot languages and prefer |
64 |
having each one using their own solution? Or do you just dislike my idea |
65 |
for them and want to use your own suggestion for them? |
66 |
|
67 |
-- |
68 |
|
69 |
Thomas Sachau |
70 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |