1 |
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 11:15 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
2 |
> Mathy Vanvoorden posted on Tue, 15 May 2018 11:32:30 +0200 as excerpted: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> 2018-05-12 14:20 GMT+02:00 Gerion Entrup <gerion.entrup@×××××.de>: |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>> just an idea for now. But what you think about multiversion ebuilds? |
7 |
>>> Technically this could be realized with the following line in the ebuild |
8 |
>>> itself: |
9 |
>>> ``` |
10 |
>>> VERSIONS=( 3.0.11 3.0.12 3.1 ) |
11 |
>>> ``` |
12 |
>>> |
13 |
>> |
14 |
>> I like the idea of multiversion ebuilds but why would you complicate the |
15 |
>> process by putting it in a variable? Why not just use symlinks and have the |
16 |
>> following: |
17 |
>> |
18 |
>> foobar/foobar-1.x |
19 |
>> foobar/foobar-1.1.ebuild -> foobar-1.x |
20 |
>> foobar/foobar-1.2.ebuild -> foobar-1.x |
21 |
>> foobar/foobar-2.x |
22 |
>> foobar/foobar-2.1.ebuild -> foobar-2.x |
23 |
> |
24 |
> AFAIK symlinks aren't allowed in the gentoo tree, with the given reason |
25 |
> being that some users, particularly those with limited net access and |
26 |
> thus "sneakernetting" from where they /do/ have net access, may place |
27 |
> the tree on or transfer it via no-symlink-support FAT32 or similar, |
28 |
> perhaps downloading it from an MS machine or the like. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> Of course users may use symlinks on their own copies, but they're not |
31 |
> allowed in the official tree. |
32 |
> |
33 |
> Tho perhaps that can be reevaluated. But while there's more connectivity |
34 |
> now than over a decade ago when that policy was created, I expect there's |
35 |
> still those paying by the meg or gig for net access locally, that won't |
36 |
> enjoy having their sneakernet sync routine disrupted. |
37 |
> |
38 |
|
39 |
Cygwin and MSYS(2) are currently mostly supported by Prefix, so using |
40 |
symlinks might kill them as well. There is some kind of symlinking |
41 |
support for NTFS now but it is very primitive. |
42 |
|
43 |
Cheers, |
44 |
R0b0t1 |