| 1 |
Greetings R0b0t1, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
R0b0t1 <r030t1@×××××.com> writes: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> It is one thing to say that contributions to the main Portage tree |
| 6 |
> require some standards to be upheld, but these standards do not seem |
| 7 |
> to be applied consistently. For example, crossdev, genkernel, and the |
| 8 |
> bootstrap-prefix and bootstrap-rap scripts are more or less |
| 9 |
> unmaintainable disasters. |
| 10 |
> [...] |
| 11 |
> and the bootstrap scripts are poorly explained with no extant |
| 12 |
> documentation and a workflow that does not clearly fit into Gentoo (or |
| 13 |
> more properly Portage) development at large. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
As one of the maintainers of the bootstrap-prefix (and bootstrap-rap), I |
| 16 |
acknowledge that the script is a result of accumulated contributions |
| 17 |
from multiple people, with rounds of refactorizations in the past |
| 18 |
several years. But it is well understood and maintainable. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I would like to remind you that, the script is a reflection of the |
| 21 |
instrinsic complexity to compile a workable Gentoo from zero, in a wild |
| 22 |
variety of environments from handhold embedded devices to top 10 |
| 23 |
supercomputers, from GNU/Linux, MacOS to Solaris/OpenIndiana and Cygwin. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Don't be pissed off if it couldn't be hacked in several hours to be |
| 26 |
ported to ppc64. That's life: anything worth doing will not be easy. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
For the standards and documentation, yes, the recommended workflow had |
| 30 |
better be carved into stone. That's where things should be improved. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Good luck |
| 33 |
Benda |
Archives