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 |