1 |
On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 07:00:32PM +1000, Finn Thain wrote: |
2 |
> If you take the long view, and assume that we will get prefixes sooner |
3 |
> than later, then devs should be aiming for _maximum_ collisions, since |
4 |
> from a darwin point of view, that means better interoperability with |
5 |
> Apple's open source work. |
6 |
|
7 |
That simply requires people to have machines for this. I don't have |
8 |
machines floating around, and I'm fore sure not willing to buy hardware |
9 |
or make my box into an even more unstable thing than it is already right |
10 |
now (try to attach an iPod to it, and it completely goes nuts for |
11 |
examplei, yeah, it's just Windows(tm)(r)). From a managerial point of |
12 |
view, your note sounds correct to me, but considering the resources, |
13 |
it's not simply done. Unless after this mail two or three people step |
14 |
forward that are willing to do this maximum collision stuff. |
15 |
|
16 |
> If you take a compromise, you might end up with fewer collisions in the |
17 |
> short term, but you make it harder for Gentoo/Darwin and "progressive" to |
18 |
> interoperate with Gentoo/macos and Apple. |
19 |
|
20 |
We cannot control collisions, at least not the real ones. They are |
21 |
there and doing something about it, usually results in having more work |
22 |
to do once we get a prefix. |
23 |
|
24 |
> That is why I argued against moving the perl executable, for example. And |
25 |
> it is also why I argued for stabling packages with collisions. I was |
26 |
> simply taking the long view, and trying to avoid rework for the |
27 |
> gentoo/darwin project. |
28 |
|
29 |
I don't like to solve perl for the current situation. It is typically |
30 |
something that should be dealt with in a prefix. If someone wants to |
31 |
install it on a progressive box, please do so. |
32 |
|
33 |
> As for the "conservative" profile, it doesn't have many users, and will |
34 |
> not have until we get prefixes, so why optimise for "collision-protect"? |
35 |
|
36 |
Given the reponses and signals I see, there are even less progressive |
37 |
users, so why optimise for them for now and screw my box to try and |
38 |
stable those ebuilds? If someone else wants to do it, fine with me, but |
39 |
it simply seems not to be an option, as noone wants to do this. |
40 |
|
41 |
I simply only want to keyword those things that for instance Dirk now |
42 |
points out that already works, and probably also will work in a prefix. |
43 |
You can call it lazy or short sighted, but to me it's just a matter of |
44 |
resources, and especially hardware resources I don't have. If I'd have |
45 |
access to a machine I could screw by installing for instance GCC via |
46 |
portage, then I'd try it out to see if it compiles and eventually |
47 |
keyword and mask it. I simply don't have it! |
48 |
|
49 |
-- |
50 |
Fabian Groffen |
51 |
Gentoo for Mac OS X Project -- Interim Lead |
52 |
-- |
53 |
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |