List Archive: gentoo-dev
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
Michał Górny schrieb:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 14:09:14 +0200
> Thomas Sachau <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Michał Górny schrieb:
>>> I have prepared a first draft of 'dynamic SLOT' specification. This
>>> is my proposal in attempt to solve the problem of building packages
>>> for multiple Python and Ruby versions. It could also be reused for
>>> The spec tries to explain the broad idea, and all problems relevant
>>> to it. It also lists a few problems which are still unsolved and I
>>> think they will cause the spec to change after hearing your ideas.
>>> To be honest, I tried to keep it as simple as possible. Please don't
>>> say it doesn't solve all the world problems because it simply won't.
>>> I'm attaching a reStructuredText version of the spec. You can view
>>> it rendered as a gist. But please keep the replies on the list,
>>> rather than forking the gist.
>> Since you have not responded to my lines in IRC, i will repeat them
>> First: How does the user see, which slots are possible and which ones
>> are currently active and which are currently not selected?
> Implementation is left to be package-manager specific. I guess colorful
> output (similar to USE flags) would be enough.
So you dont like my solution with USE flags and then suggest some USE
flag like output for your own solution? If you want to use something USE
flag like, then simply use USE flags, they already exist. ;-)
>> Beside that, it seems to solve things pretty similar to the proposed
>> way in multilib-portage for cross-compiling (which could also be
>> adapted for multi-slot languages) with different wording and with
>> additional work for ebuild maintainers. And since my proposal already
>> uses USE flags, things would not change visually for users of e.g.
>> ruby or php.
> I'm sad you aren't even trying to listen. Your attempt implies that
> every single change in targets requires rebuilding all of them. If I
> weren't using 32-bit libs, and now I want to compile 32-bit wine, I
> have to recompile most of my libraries for both ABIs. That is
> a no go for me.
So you want to build a 32bit package, which is depending on 32bit libs,
but want to do that without the needed dependencies? Please tell me, how
> And adjusting that for other multi-slot languages is pointless. Because
> they do the same already.
So you dont like one framework for all multi-slot languages and prefer
having each one using their own solution? Or do you just dislike my idea
for them and want to use your own suggestion for them?
Gentoo Linux Developer