| 1 |
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Reinis Danne <rei4dan@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I have cleaned up a bit alternatives-2.eclass to make it easier to review. |
| 5 |
> Also if someone knows any shortcommings of this eclass as it is, then point |
| 6 |
> it out, I'll try to address them. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I hope this can be soon moved to the main tree thus closing the divide |
| 9 |
> between |
| 10 |
> science overlay and portage tree. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Your changes are mostly minor and only apply to the eclass, so I have no |
| 15 |
comments. You should commit them to the overlay, code reviews on the github |
| 16 |
review panel are more practical than on the mailing list. |
| 17 |
One important thing the creation of eselect modules could be done directly |
| 18 |
from eselect rather than the eclass, keeping the eclass much more simple, |
| 19 |
and allowing users to create their own providers easily. I may work on it. |
| 20 |
I had some local changes of eselect and I added the repo [1] to the github |
| 21 |
gentoo-science, that you can test by unmasking eselect-9999. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Known issues of the alternatives framework: |
| 24 |
* when having more than 1 provider, updating a package that provided the |
| 25 |
eselected provider, will not re-eselect the same provider unless it was the |
| 26 |
first on the list |
| 27 |
* possible residual orphan files |
| 28 |
* given the number of bugs, we should keep the linking to the reference |
| 29 |
names libraries, so we could eselect providers without re-compiling all |
| 30 |
reverse dependencies. We could do this in the open sourced providers by |
| 31 |
changing the soname of the libraries we compile, and in the binary ones |
| 32 |
(mkl,amcl...) with a link script generated library. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
[1] https://github.com/gentoo-science/eselect |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Sebastien |
Archives