| 1 |
On 3/20/06, tvali <qtvali@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> 2006/3/20, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri <barbieri@×××××.com>: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > I do think you're overcomplicating things where you shouldn't. |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > Declaring stuff manually will always break, and to ensure a safe |
| 7 |
> > system, it's better to use compiler information. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> In all cases, dependancy should be based on interfaces, not code. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> All packages may: |
| 12 |
> * Provide an interface |
| 13 |
> * Use an interface |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Depending on useflags, OS and other compile options, it differs, which |
| 16 |
> interfaces are provided and used. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> This is, abstractly, what portage does with interfaces. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> If portage uses some interface, it may need it's header files when |
| 21 |
> building. It may also need another lib for static build. This means |
| 22 |
> that binary check is not possible in all cases. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Now, the problem is: |
| 25 |
> * How to get an information about a package, which specifies exactly, |
| 26 |
> which interface is needed. How to get it before building in case when |
| 27 |
> this interface is needed to be emerged before compilation [before |
| 28 |
> linking everything together, at least]. Which is a form of this |
| 29 |
> information and what could be read out from that? |
| 30 |
> * How to get information about which interfaces are provided by which |
| 31 |
> packages *not yet emerged* -- by their current use flags(?). This |
| 32 |
> means that it must be possible to know, which interfaces are provided |
| 33 |
> by packages, without first building it -- and the form given by binary |
| 34 |
> check must be the same as the form of descriptor used by this package |
| 35 |
> check. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> So, how to get correct provider together with correct client? |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Ok, I agree with you that this would be the perfect solution, but it |
| 40 |
would demand too much effort to have this right. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
I'm not proposing the final-perfect solution, just something better |
| 43 |
than we have now. It would not cover every case, but would cover most |
| 44 |
cases in a satisfactory way. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
-- |
| 48 |
Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri |
| 49 |
-------------------------------------- |
| 50 |
Jabber: barbieri@×××××.com |
| 51 |
MSN: barbieri@×××××.com |
| 52 |
ICQ#: 17249123 |
| 53 |
Skype: gsbarbieri |
| 54 |
Mobile: +55 (81) 9927 0010 |
| 55 |
Phone: +1 (347) 624 6296; 08122692@××××××××××××××.com |
| 56 |
GPG: 0xB640E1A2 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
-- |
| 59 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives