| 1 |
On 20-11-2017 11:53:32 -0600, R0b0t1 wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hello friends! |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> On Monday, November 20, 2017, Sergei Trofimovich <[1]slyfox@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 22:47:35 -0600 |
| 6 |
> > R0b0t1 <[2]r030t1@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> >> Understanding an existing codebase should not be a technical |
| 9 |
> >> challenge. I had to resort to reimplementing all of the steps myself, |
| 10 |
> >> in part to understand if they were done properly in the first place. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Looks like you are an expert in this area now and are perfectly capable |
| 13 |
> > of submitting the patches. I can review them at least for crossdev. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> In my goal to understand bootstrap-rap I am still in the process of creating |
| 17 |
> something crossdev-like that can be used to generate a toolchain. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> A recurring problem I have had is that this set of related tasks - generating |
| 20 |
> cross compilers and packages, generating an initramfs, or generating a prefixed |
| 21 |
> pseudoinstallation - all start by reimplementing some subset of portage. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> For prefix/RAP it makes sense, for the others possibly not. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
You may also want to understand that cross-compiling (or compilers) in |
| 26 |
itself is a very difficult topic to get right. Mixing that with Prefix |
| 27 |
FAICT never got out of the lab-setting in which it was attempted. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> >> Unfortunately these are things that the original authors should |
| 30 |
> >> produce. Experience has shown me that documentation written by |
| 31 |
> >> ancillary contributors that do not have deep experience with the code |
| 32 |
> >> base is poor. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Like Benda said, documentation can always be improved. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
In the case for bootstrap-prefix, it used to be documented in terms of |
| 37 |
steps and why one had to do them that way. Somewhere at the start of |
| 38 |
2006, when there was like 150 packages, and one arch (ppc-macos), said |
| 39 |
script didn't exist. As it stands today, the key decisions and |
| 40 |
workarounds are actually documented, but as RAP actually shows, if you |
| 41 |
only focus on a specific use-case, you can get rid of a lot of (what |
| 42 |
appears to be) nonsense. It's the context in which you look at the |
| 43 |
projects you refer to. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
> Yes, that is what I am doing with my own code as I have the time to |
| 46 |
> write it. I mostly still have no idea what is going on in the already |
| 47 |
> written code. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
Perhaps open up the dicussion on the related project's mailing lists. |
| 50 |
At least I haven't come across any request to explain certain |
| 51 |
bits/decisions yet. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Thanks, |
| 54 |
Fabian |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
-- |
| 57 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 58 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives