Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] making rust-bin ordered first in virtual/rust
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 10:35:00
Message-Id: YeqMSRzGkGkvbi0L@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] making rust-bin ordered first in virtual/rust by "Peter Böhm"
1 On 21-01-2022 11:29:54 +0100, Peter Böhm wrote:
2 > Dear Developers,
3 >
4 > I like your goal to make Gentoo more user-friendly but Gentoo is a source
5 > based distribution and I dont like binary versions as a default. My question
6 > is:
7 >
8 > Who has problems with "big" packages like rust or firefox ?
9 >
10 > Only User which doesnt know there is a binary version. So, in every case we
11 > need to describe it in our AMD64 handbook.
12 >
13 > Am Freitag, 21. Januar 2022, 10:22:14 CET schrieb Mart Raudsepp:
14 > > Anyhow, my vote is to default to rust-bin - people can easily be told
15 > > to move to dev-lang/rust at their convenience and then explicitly
16 > > depclean rust-bin.
17 >
18 > I am dreaming about another solution where this is not needed:
19 >
20 > In our /etc/portage/make.conf we can have a new:
21 >
22 > MAKEBIN="rust firefox"
23 >
24 > ... resulting in an automatic switch to the binary version of all included
25 > packages ... of course this is also as recommendation in our AMD64 handbook
26 > (with a clue to delete it if not desired).
27
28 or ... if we could have Portage check the requirements for building a
29 package, and if it cannot be met, that it tries to resolve the || case,
30 which would be the -bin variant in this case.
31
32 Not sure if the information is available to Portage at dependency
33 resolution time though.
34
35 Fabian
36
37 >
38 > Kind reagards,
39 > Peter
40 >
41 >
42 >
43 >
44
45 --
46 Fabian Groffen
47 Gentoo on a different level

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature