| 1 |
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Thomas Sachau <tommy@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Matt Turner schrieb: |
| 3 |
>> I suppose that's just for ease of implementation? Not having to |
| 4 |
>> special-case packages that don't install binaries. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I dont follow. Did you think about only having additional ABI flags for |
| 7 |
> certain cases? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Right. It seems to me that not having the ABI flags for packages like |
| 10 |
x11-proto/* would make more sense, but may be more work to implement. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> Those ABI flags behave the same as other USE flags: When you change |
| 13 |
> them, you have to recompile the package including all the content, that |
| 14 |
> has been compiled previously. |
| 15 |
> If you want the compile for each ABI seperate, then you would have to |
| 16 |
> handle them more like SLOTS, but with a new syntax, with a collision |
| 17 |
> handler for the common content and how to handle that in the user UI. I |
| 18 |
> fear, that this would be way more complicated to implement in a sane |
| 19 |
> way, so i dont plan to go that route. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Ouch. I already think a mechanism for telling the package manager "you |
| 22 |
don't need to rebuild this entire package to turn on /this/ USE flag" |
| 23 |
is needed. For ABIs, the situation seems much more clear-cut. In fact, |
| 24 |
it seems rather important. |
Archives