| 1 |
Dnia 20 września 2017 10:23:42 CEST, "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 2 |
>Am Dienstag, 19. September 2017, 22:38:17 CEST schrieb Luca Barbato: |
| 3 |
>> > REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( sunrpc libtirpc ntirpc )" |
| 4 |
>> > If rpc support is optional with useflag rpc, then this becomes |
| 5 |
>> > REQUIRED_USE="rpc? ( ^^ ( sunrpc libtirpc ntirpc ) )" |
| 6 |
>> > |
| 7 |
>> > Since the three options are coinstallable I see no problems with a |
| 8 |
>package |
| 9 |
>> > only supporting a subset, but I have no clue how this interacts at |
| 10 |
>> > runtime. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> If they aren't ABI-compatible you would expect explosions once you |
| 13 |
>link |
| 14 |
>> two libraries linked to the two different implementation (assuming |
| 15 |
>they |
| 16 |
>> aren't macro-mangling everything). |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
>Yep. So, apart from requiring "use the same implementation everywhere", |
| 19 |
>i.e. |
| 20 |
>set the flag globally, and stating "if you micromanage, you have to |
| 21 |
>contain |
| 22 |
>the explosions yourself" - is there anything else we can realistically |
| 23 |
>do? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
dev-libs/foo[sunrpc=,tirpc=...]? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
>> We could check if the other libc could be switched to the external |
| 29 |
>> provider and play the lazy card and just always force an external |
| 30 |
>> implementation. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
>Two or three implementations doesnt make that much of a difference |
| 33 |
>anymore... |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Best regards, |
| 38 |
Michał Górny (by phone) |
Archives