[gentoo-dev] Re: GNU userland and binary package (WAS: RFC: sh versionator.eclass)

[Steve Long]

Natanael Copa wrote:

> On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 06:52 -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
>> On 10/8/07, Natanael Copa <natanael.copa@×××××.com> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2007-10-07 at 21:26 -0600, Joe Peterson wrote:
>> > > Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > > > Fabian has summed it up nicely, thanks.  i could care less what
>> > > > your userland is outside of the ebuild environment since it doesnt
>> > > > matter to ebuild
>> > > > writers.  you want a deficient runtime environment, more power to
>> > > > you, but
>> > > > forcing that environment onto ebuild developers is not acceptable.
>> > > > off the top of my head, i'd like to see GNU find/xargs added to the
>> > > > ebuild environment.
>> > >
>> > > Mike, exactly as I said.  That's option #2, and I think it could be a
>> > > great solution.  As for deficient, well, that's in the eye of the
>> > > beholder.  ;)
>> > >
++ on the general idea: GNU sed, grep, awk, ed and find get my vote (as well
as BASH ofc.) (I don't /think/ you need xargs anymore with find .. -exec.)

>> >
>> > Question, if you go for #2. Does that mean you will need all the
>> > required GNU userland to do binary only installs?
>> >
>> > It would be highly desireable to be able to do binary installs (write
>> > your own binary only package manager) without depending on all the GNU
>> > stuff needed to compile the packages.
>>
Well all you're talking about is BASH and a few others on the machine that
builds the binaries afaict. I don't see that as a major imposition. You can
then package for downstream using whatever you like.

If you're that motivated why not just start hacking on binary support in
portage/pkgcore/paludis? There's always open bugs.

>> Your own binary only package manager would still need to provide
>> Option #2; ie you need to have GNU tools installed to process the
>> binary packages.  pkg_* functions could still have GNU stuff in them
>> and those still get run during a binary package install.
>
> If we would like to be able to do binary installs without the GNU tools,
> what alternatives do we have?
>
<snip stuff that all takes a lot of effort for zero end-user gain>

> Any other alternatives?
>
> Comments?
>
I'd just specify BASH (as I don't see the point in making the distinction as
it only applies to build machines) and coreutils/findutils etc.
Asking everyone to switch coding style for certain functions, just to
support the stuff that Gentoo was designed to do from the beginning, seems
counter-productive. For every market except embedded, which we've discussed
already, BASH is not a major issue: nor are the other tools mentioned.
>
> Alternative C is what I do today.
>
Sounds rough :)
(I really would recommend #pkgcore as well as there is several years of work
to do with binpkgs in that.)

Standardising on a certain subset of base GNU tools seems like a good idea
to me too.


-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list