Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] new glep draft: Portage as a secondary package manager
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 13:24:47
Message-Id: 20050506142849.2aefb952@snowdrop
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] new glep draft: Portage as a secondary package manager by Brian Harring
1 On Fri, 6 May 2005 00:09:58 -0500 Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o>
2 wrote:
3 | That said, I'll just point at fink's nonstandard prefix for
4 | installation as a better example that it *can* be pulled off without
5 | all of this 'fire, brimstome, and the apocalypse on earth' cruft
6 | people keep throwing about as an arguement it can't work.
7 |
8 | Think about it for a second. What is the purpose of --prefix, and all
9 | the other lovely configure installation options? To configure the
10 | source so it'll work in it's intended destination.
11 |
12 | Yes, it doesn't work perfectly across all packages, and not all
13 | packages are designed to be flexible in installation (straight
14 | makefile hacks come to mind, dev-util/bsdiff for example). This is
15 | why I keep pointing at the parallel of adding a new arch. You get
16 | your core support down, and expand support across the tree as you go.
17 |
18 | In other words, yes, there are technical issues, but I _still_ posit
19 | that those issues are experienced by those who want said support, and
20 | who are the lucky buggers who have to do the bug squashing. It's the
21 | same damn thing macos encounters, and any new arch, hence my complete
22 | lack of understanding for why people are quick to fire off "piss off,
23 | it won't work" without looking at the actual issues.
24
25 The problem isn't the packages. The problem is the ebuilds.
26
27 | > Eh? No, see, we have KEYWORDS, which indicate whether you can use a
28 | > package on a given arch.
29 |
30 | Dodging my point. You stated, "if we introduce it, people will expect
31 | it to actually work". It's defeatist logic; won't try because people
32 | might bitch if they wade into experimental territory and get bit.
33 |
34 | That's the point I was getting at, which you seemed to ignore/not
35 | understand.
36 |
37 | Pointing out that people might try an experimental feature and hit
38 | issues and bitch as a reason for _not_ doing something is just plain
39 | daft.
40
41 Except we have an easy way of marking which ebuilds will actually work
42 with this thing. Why not use it? It's a hell of a lot cleaner, it gives
43 us better feedback and it makes it easier for the users.
44
45 | If you've got a better suggestion, macos probably would love to know
46 | of it ;)
47
48 Per-ebuild whitelisting, kind of like KEYWORDS. This has the added
49 advantage of making it easy for additional kinds of install target to be
50 added at some point.
51
52 | So, fink demonstration of --prefix hackery?
53
54 If you want a better example, try either SGI or Sun's GNU tools ports.
55 But they don't use ebuilds either.
56
57 --
58 Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron)
59 Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org
60 Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm

Replies