Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Alec Warner <warnera6@×××××××.edu>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Modular X plans
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 23:26:56
Message-Id: 42EEAEF9.9080300@egr.msu.edu
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Modular X plans by Ciaran McCreesh
1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
2 Hash: SHA1
3
4 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
5 > On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:54:04 -0700 Donnie Berkholz
6 > <spyderous@g.o> wrote:
7 > | Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
8 > | | Well... What I was mainly thinking (and assuming we don't have the
9 > | | new virtuals system by whenever this becomes relevant) is that a
10 > | | metapackage could represent, say, "the core x11 libraries as
11 > | | provided by xorg". This is all well and good, but there are other X
12 > | | implementations out there. It could well save a lot of work in the
13 > | | long term if deps were generally upon "the core x11 libraries"
14 > | | instead.
15 > |
16 > | But see, that's the thing; no packages should just generally say "Give
17 > | me the X libraries" other than temporarily. They should be
18 > | specifically demanding upon the exact libraries they require.
19 >
20 > Hrmmmmm. Is this going to be sanely doable by your average dev? How long
21 > a dep string would we be having in typical cases? How about in bad
22 > cases?
23 >
24 The more formal the depstring, the quicker the packages build ( using
25 only needed packages instead of lumping them in one group ). This is
26 essentially what the DEPEND should be, just what the packages needs to
27 compile and run. This especially benefits embedded targets who need a
28 bare-bones set of libraries and nothing else.
29 > | | Is it your assumption that in the future xorg-x11 will be the only
30 > | | serious X server?
31 > |
32 > | My assumption is that if there's another fork, it will be easier to
33 > | deal with || ( xorg-libfoo forkx-libfoo ) than a virtual for every
34 > | single package X provides.
35 >
36 > So X deps will be by package ('either xorg-libfoo or forkx-foo or
37 > sgi-x'), rather than by concept in the future?
38 >
39 I think concepts are important and abstract complexity from a packages
40 DEPEND. However, having the DEPEND be accurate is important as well.
41 This almost reeks of the USE group GLEP being applied here as well.
42 Setting up DEPEND-set would be great for this, although it is difficult
43 to imagine sets that can be shared between many packages. eclasses are
44 marginally decent for this right now anyway.
45
46 > | | *shrug* I realise we make similar assumptions about a lot of
47 > | | packages, but X is a) an at least vaguely standard protocol, b)
48 > | | heavily depended upon and c) implemented by more than one vendor.
49 > |
50 > | Indeed. But what I've begun to discover is that virtuals aren't always
51 > | the best solution when there is more than one provider, much less when
52 > | that's a largely hypothetical question.
53 The problem with the individual approach is if I wanted to run XFree,
54 or a competing X implementation, I have to add about 200+ packages to
55 /etc/portage/package.provided. This is not clean at all; it's hideous.
56 If I add the meta-build to /etc/portage/package.provided it just means
57 that I am managing the meta-ebuild and it is valid to count it as
58 installed for dep calculation. This is not true of any of the
59 dependencies of the meta-ebuild however. Thats just what I remember fro
60 m discussion about it, so correct me if it's wrong ;)
61
62 >
63 > Mmm, possibly true. For the big things though, I was hoping we could
64 > switch more towards depending by concept rather than by implementation,
65 > especially once we get improved virtuals. The current X situation is
66 > sort of a concept dependency -- moving away from that could arguably be
67 > seen as a regression from one perspective.
68 >
69 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
70 Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
71 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
72
73 iQIVAwUBQu6u+GzglR5RwbyYAQI+Jw/+NZ1e0S687AjvBFwbK9qOGekgjd37WIxk
74 w5Y+t66OgULeU9XTNRW9hLY63Eg7q5nOByAH4HyUwntrgPTHr9s3c/GhP80f4Jwa
75 cDfhSnR6axMaNS5CgmZ/DyrfVGlCPTa6JWWdjt9rTcuFIIx1/SbMxcGcg0Lv7JJE
76 SCGchwugKOjoy+uhsEDVh6/nUhzdb/Nj5wsz/CbNdFPtnob87w/iTB0AVcNyXn2T
77 fJ4q5Lvrmb1/CyUso26am2dpAw+0xY0kmWSDzBxiMPbP06zX39ZrMEkTxLfsQoZO
78 ISVQmQ5K532qWpziSaktDtzKdxcw+vJU9ObelJX2deGyurl7mUxfjALoQ702eSI7
79 1Bmx9QqvtGWWmzDRtw1VNXr0645QKX+HFsPR1o9vZHqT2orKLs6FcHTjNKr6nCRx
80 Y0ixYRSSwk5Ik3WeG/3ydNJs45NrcOa9qE66uU9OIvM+ONIxVTey6WpF/XGHqcC/
81 6K8QiQw1eJV5qIK3vH72dZ+B+Bk9fYX3Pn+q7gVLYHFekCIVwxZu0R6wWkQIcgAt
82 fb6WLILnduo4wvDdgRToTswdaQbxP5qaX7Y4uB1PerXDgwG4/kVK+ZhYVjhJpnN2
83 nj38OBLQZUJ0WaiReYygiFz1ePiaAWG4Fy2uH/kNUFsHt0QvjFnzkw+7s9/dst6t
84 j42vluI+/fk=
85 =O+1e
86 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
87 --
88 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Modular X plans Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@×××××××××××××.uk>