Re: [gentoo-dev] Speaking of new kernels being added to the tree

[Luke-Jr]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Saturday 04 October 2003 02:15 pm, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> On Saturday 04 October 2003 3:04 pm, Luke-Jr wrote:
> > emerge linux-mm-src, then. or emerge linux-redhat-src, if you prefer.
>
> Sorry, but renaming packages always makes a mess of upgrades.  I've done it
> myself in the past, but I'm reluctant to do it again until Portage provides
> us with tools to automate the migration for users.
I thought Portage did automate renaming of packages? Isn't that what those 
Q#-YYYY are for?
>
> Besides, what value is there in adding 'linux-' in front of the different
> kernel names?  I know Gentoo's being ported to run on more than just the
> Linux kernel, but still.  Seems like change for change's sake.
Packages don't neccesarilly need to be a kernel at all. If -src were 
implemented, there would be apache-src, kdelibs-src, gcc-src, etc...
>
> > Just because you choose not to use it doesn't mean you should be forcing
> > other people not to be able to. This provides the *option* to use it.
> > Options are always best.
>
> Simplicity is always best.  Options are good, but only when they add
> measurable value.  Or when they're just too cool to leave out ;-)
As it is, kernels are a non-standard set of ebuilds. There is always value is 
standardizing things.
>
> > That annoying habit is what should be fixed, then. Using a bug as a
> > reason to not implement a feature isn't a good idea... =p
>
> If it was that easy, I think someone would have fixed it by now ... ;-)
> Tbh, the fix is probably just to slot the module, using a combination of
> the target kernel version and the module's version.
w/o the module's version. You don't want to install ALSA 0.9.2 and 0.9.3 at 
the same time, do you?
>
> If what you're proposing are changes *just* to genkernel, then I don't
> really care what you do.  But you're talking like you're suggesting
> fundamental changes to the kernel ebuilds themselves.  *That's* what I'm
> objecting to ;-)
It would be making the linux ebuilds' src_compile actually do what it was 
meant to do. It would also be adding a feature to portage so one could append 
- -src to the end of any ebuild and get only the result of src_unpack in 
their /usr/src dir.

>
> > For the most part, what I am suggesting is adding options, not removing
> > them. Where people used vanilla-sources in the past (which is quite vague
> > actually; why should one assume -sources means it's Linux?),
>
> Erm, because the package is actually called sys-kernel/vanilla-sources,
> perhaps? ;-)  And because the distribution is known as Gentoo Linux? ;-)
IMO, categories are merely useful for when searching for packages and 
shouldn't really be needed for knowing what a package is especially since two 
packages cannot have the same name. If pkg name conflicts never happened, I'd 
suggest using only the package names where category/package is often used.
I refer to Gentoo as only Gentoo. When referring to my OS, I call it Gentoo 
GNU/Linux. I also make reference to Gentoo BSD, Gentoo OS X, or Gentoo GNU 
(HURD==completely GNU) occasionally.
Once Gentoo BSD or Gentoo OS X get to a usable stage, I'd assume the website 
would be updated to reflect that Gentoo is more than just Linux or perhaps 
seperate Gentoo BSD/OSX/etc websites would be setup.
>
> Seriously, I do see the problem you're describing.  But before you go
> around renaming packages, please implement a solution in Portage that will
> automatically handle 'emerge -u' when the package has been renamed.
AFAIK, this already should work. Note I don't use -u nor the world metakeyword 
(at least until Portage supports sticky USE), though.
- -- 
Luke-Jr
Developer, Gentoo Linux
http://www.gentoo.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/ftr2Zl/BHdU+lYMRAkY6AJ9DncM6yOfqWDCuPB3U9by4Reg4nwCfX2GI
sVbRtUR2xiujxlj/WdRPpI8=
=v4Os
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list