1 |
2018-05-12 14:20 GMT+02:00 Gerion Entrup <gerion.entrup@×××××.de>: |
2 |
|
3 |
just an idea for now. But what you think about multiversion ebuilds? |
4 |
> Technically this could be realized with the following line in the ebuild |
5 |
> itself: |
6 |
> ``` |
7 |
> VERSIONS=( 3.0.11 3.0.12 3.1 ) |
8 |
> ``` |
9 |
> |
10 |
|
11 |
I like the idea of multiversion ebuilds but why would you complicate the |
12 |
process by putting it in a variable? Why not just use symlinks and have the |
13 |
following: |
14 |
|
15 |
foobar/foobar-1.x |
16 |
foobar/foobar-1.1.ebuild -> foobar-1.x |
17 |
foobar/foobar-1.2.ebuild -> foobar-1.x |
18 |
foobar/foobar-2.x |
19 |
foobar/foobar-2.1.ebuild -> foobar-2.x |
20 |
|
21 |
It would result in the same outcome but it seems to me that a lot less work |
22 |
(almost none?) is needed to implement it. |
23 |
|
24 |
Benefits compared to your suggestion: |
25 |
* you don't need to add the extra VERSIONS variable and related logic |
26 |
* you don't need the set of rules |
27 |
* you can have multiple multiversioned ebuilds per package |
28 |
|
29 |
I'm not sure if adding the foobar-1.x file is allowed by portage. |
30 |
|
31 |
You would still need logic like this for the keywording: |
32 |
|
33 |
``` |
34 |
> if [[ ${PV} == "3.1" ]] ; then |
35 |
> KEYWORDS="~amd64 ~x86" |
36 |
> else |
37 |
> KEYWORDS="amd64 x86" |
38 |
> fi |
39 |
> ``` |
40 |
> |
41 |
|
42 |
br, |
43 |
Mathy |