| 1 |
On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 23:18 +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi folks, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I know this issue is not actually in the scope of this list, but |
| 6 |
> maybe some of you might be interested: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Lots of packages have optional parts which (IMHO) should/could be |
| 9 |
> their own packages, ie. GUI frontends to console tools (aumix) or |
| 10 |
> several language bindings of certain libs/toolkits. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Those things tend to produce circular dependencies, which can |
| 13 |
> only be solved with tricks like multiple builds, special useflags |
| 14 |
> like "build" or "bootstrap". |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> For example berkeley db: it written in C and has additional |
| 17 |
> bindings for C++ and Java. This produces two kind of problems: |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> a) for the base system we must take care that it's built w/o them. |
| 20 |
> b) if some package needs an special binding, dependencies get tricky |
| 21 |
> (AFAIK portage cannot solve feature deps yet) |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> An clean solution would be having the bindings as separate packages. |
| 24 |
> Of course, often the upstream is not ready for this yet, and it's |
| 25 |
> not in the scope of an distro like gentoo to such heavy changes. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> But those splits really should be done (IMHO) to make things a lot |
| 28 |
> easier. So let's do it - do the split and try to convince the |
| 29 |
> upstream to get it in. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
We release our packages as upstream intends. If they don't split them, |
| 32 |
we don't split them, talk to upstream not us. This is what use flags are |
| 33 |
for... |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
--Dan |
Archives