| 1 |
On Tuesday 10 August 2004 14:21, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I couldn't really follow all that you said, but bug 39246 made a lot more |
| 5 |
> sense. Let me see if I can summarise your requirements... |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> For portage's role, |
| 8 |
> * The compiler is slotted |
| 9 |
> * The libraries are slotted against the compiler that was used to compile |
| 10 |
> them |
| 11 |
> * When the compiler is upgraded, all libraries are recompiled with the |
| 12 |
> new compiler |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Then there is a compiler-config proggy that'll set what compiler is |
| 15 |
> currently in use. Does that about sum it up? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
That's what i implemented yes, my proposal just adds more flexibility and |
| 18 |
describe a correct (i hope) design (avoiding the use of dynamic SLOTs for the |
| 19 |
libraries, as the 'dynamicity' would be in the hands of portage only with |
| 20 |
compiler policies). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> If the compiler wasn't slotted, the compiler-config program wouldn't be |
| 23 |
> necessary and the other two requirements would be easy to satisfy. If it |
| 24 |
> is... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
We obviously have to use static SLOTs to support different compiler |
| 27 |
versions... |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> Anyway, I'll let you confirm that these are the actual requirements |
| 30 |
> before bouncing around ideas. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I confirm those are the main ideas, go on ! |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
BOFH Excuse #447: According to Microsoft, it's by design |
Archives