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