Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Natanael Copa <natanael.copa@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GNU userland and binary package (WAS: RFC: sh versionator.eclass)
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:15:05
Message-Id: 1191855757.31670.75.camel@nc.nor.wtbts.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] GNU userland and binary package (WAS: RFC: sh versionator.eclass) by Alec Warner
1 On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 06:52 -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
2 > On 10/8/07, Natanael Copa <natanael.copa@×××××.com> wrote:
3 > > On Sun, 2007-10-07 at 21:26 -0600, Joe Peterson wrote:
4 > > > Mike Frysinger wrote:
5 > > > > Fabian has summed it up nicely, thanks. i could care less what your userland
6 > > > > is outside of the ebuild environment since it doesnt matter to ebuild
7 > > > > writers. you want a deficient runtime environment, more power to you, but
8 > > > > forcing that environment onto ebuild developers is not acceptable. off the
9 > > > > top of my head, i'd like to see GNU find/xargs added to the ebuild
10 > > > > environment.
11 > > > > -mike
12 > > >
13 > > > Mike, exactly as I said. That's option #2, and I think it could be a
14 > > > great solution. As for deficient, well, that's in the eye of the
15 > > > beholder. ;)
16 > > >
17 > > > -Joe
18 > >
19 > > Question, if you go for #2. Does that mean you will need all the
20 > > required GNU userland to do binary only installs?
21 > >
22 > > It would be highly desireable to be able to do binary installs (write
23 > > your own binary only package manager) without depending on all the GNU
24 > > stuff needed to compile the packages.
25 >
26 > Your own binary only package manager would still need to provide
27 > Option #2; ie you need to have GNU tools installed to process the
28 > binary packages. pkg_* functions could still have GNU stuff in them
29 > and those still get run during a binary package install.
30
31 If we would like to be able to do binary installs without the GNU tools,
32 what alternatives do we have?
33
34 Those pops up to my mind:
35
36 A. move the pkg_* functions out of the ebuild to a separate file. Those
37 have a subset of the EAPI and needs to be posix compliant.
38
39 B. don't use GNU extensions in pkg_functions and have some way to export
40 them (extract pkg_* functions from environment.bz2). Those can then be
41 used by pre/post script in binary package manager.
42
43 C. Binary package managers will need to write their own pre/post
44 scripts.
45
46
47 Any other alternatives?
48
49 Comments?
50
51
52 Alternative C is what I do today.
53
54 -nc
55
56 >
57 > -Alec
58
59 --
60 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies