Gentoo Archives: gentoo-alt

From: Jeremy Olexa <darkside@g.o>
To: gentoo-alt@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-alt] [PREFIX] profiles arch subs?
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 14:52:55
Message-Id: 90b936c0905190752k512c8e75me9268f8b4e410e2f@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-alt] [PREFIX] profiles arch subs? by Fabian Groffen
1 On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote:
2 > On 19-05-2009 09:30:13 -0500, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
3 >> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 5:49 AM, Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote:
4 >> > Hi all,
5 >> >
6 >> > While cleaning up the Darwin and Solaris profiles, I noticed that there
7 >> > is some redundancy in masks (necessary) due to the structure based on
8 >> > single inheritance:
9 >> >
10 >> > <os>/<release>/<arch>
11 >> > e.g.
12 >> > darwin/10.4/ppc
13 >> > darwin/10.4/x86
14 >> > darwin/10.5/ppc
15 >> > darwin/10.5/x86
16 >> >
17 >> > Most e.g. masks in the ppc dirs are specific for the CPU, and not really
18 >> > bound to the OS release.  So I propose the following structure:
19 >> >
20 >> > <os>/<arch>
21 >> > <os>/<release>/<arch> (inherits from .. and ../../<arch>)
22 >> >
23 >> > This way a single mask can e.g. apply to all PPC versions of Mac OS X.
24 >> > Similar for Solaris' sparc, sparc64, x86 and x64.
25 >> >
26 >> > Does this make sense, or am I missing something obvious?  Better ideas?
27 >> >
28 >> > (note that I (hopefully) kept full backwards compatability with this scheme)
29 >>
30 >> Like:
31 >> darwin/ppc/10.4
32 >> darwin/x86/10.4
33 >> darwin/ppc/10.5
34 >> darwin/x86/10.5
35 >
36 > No, just:
37 >
38 > darwin/ppc
39 > darwin/x86
40 > darwin/10.4/ppc
41 > darwin/10.4/x86
42 > darwin/10.5/ppc
43 > darwin/10.5/x86
44
45 The less inheritance you have, the better/easier it is, IMO. So, I
46 would greatly prefer what I suggested to what you are suggesting. I
47 think. The end result is the same besides aesthetics. You can place a
48 mask in darwin/ppc/package.mask with both methods proposed.
49
50 >
51 >> Is that how you are planning to do it? Because I think that makes the
52 >> most sense. If you look at linux/ - they are linux/<arch>/ (they skip
53 >> the <release> because it isn't needed)
54 >
55 > Well, that's just doing it the other way around?
56 >
57 >> Do also realize that this applies to *all* profiles, not just darwin
58 >> and solaris. Windows look like the only ones that won't need changing
59 >> because linux.
60 >
61 > Hmmm... not sure if other profiles are much in need for it.  Alternative
62 > is to create a prefix/arch/{x86,ppc,sparc,...}, or maybe even start
63 > inheriting arch/X.  In principle looks ok, but its linux biased
64 > sometimes...
65
66 ew. No. prefix/arch/... has no business for us. The reason I say that
67 other profiles can benefit from my suggestion is when you look at
68 hpux, it will eventually have hppa and 11.{23,31}/{ia64,hppa} just
69 doesn't make sense when you need a mask for all hppa for example. The
70 same with sunos. So, maybe not all, but some profiles can use this
71 idea.

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-alt] [PREFIX] profiles arch subs? Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o>