| 1 |
Michał Górny schrieb: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 14:09:14 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Thomas Sachau <tommy@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Michał Górny schrieb: |
| 6 |
>>> Hello, |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> I have prepared a first draft of 'dynamic SLOT' specification. This |
| 9 |
>>> is my proposal in attempt to solve the problem of building packages |
| 10 |
>>> for multiple Python and Ruby versions. It could also be reused for |
| 11 |
>>> multilib. |
| 12 |
>>> |
| 13 |
>>> The spec tries to explain the broad idea, and all problems relevant |
| 14 |
>>> to it. It also lists a few problems which are still unsolved and I |
| 15 |
>>> think they will cause the spec to change after hearing your ideas. |
| 16 |
>>> |
| 17 |
>>> To be honest, I tried to keep it as simple as possible. Please don't |
| 18 |
>>> say it doesn't solve all the world problems because it simply won't. |
| 19 |
>>> |
| 20 |
>>> I'm attaching a reStructuredText version of the spec. You can view |
| 21 |
>>> it rendered as a gist[1]. But please keep the replies on the list, |
| 22 |
>>> rather than forking the gist. |
| 23 |
>>> |
| 24 |
>>> [1]:https://gist.github.com/2943774 |
| 25 |
>>> |
| 26 |
>> |
| 27 |
>> Since you have not responded to my lines in IRC, i will repeat them |
| 28 |
>> here: |
| 29 |
>> |
| 30 |
>> First: How does the user see, which slots are possible and which ones |
| 31 |
>> are currently active and which are currently not selected? |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Implementation is left to be package-manager specific. I guess colorful |
| 34 |
> output (similar to USE flags) would be enough. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
So you dont like my solution with USE flags and then suggest some USE |
| 37 |
flag like output for your own solution? If you want to use something USE |
| 38 |
flag like, then simply use USE flags, they already exist. ;-) |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
>> Beside that, it seems to solve things pretty similar to the proposed |
| 42 |
>> way in multilib-portage for cross-compiling (which could also be |
| 43 |
>> adapted for multi-slot languages) with different wording and with |
| 44 |
>> additional work for ebuild maintainers. And since my proposal already |
| 45 |
>> uses USE flags, things would not change visually for users of e.g. |
| 46 |
>> ruby or php. |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> I'm sad you aren't even trying to listen. Your attempt implies that |
| 49 |
> every single change in targets requires rebuilding all of them. If I |
| 50 |
> weren't using 32-bit libs, and now I want to compile 32-bit wine, I |
| 51 |
> have to recompile most of my libraries for both ABIs. That is |
| 52 |
> a no go for me. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
So you want to build a 32bit package, which is depending on 32bit libs, |
| 55 |
but want to do that without the needed dependencies? Please tell me, how |
| 56 |
that works. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
> |
| 59 |
> And adjusting that for other multi-slot languages is pointless. Because |
| 60 |
> they do the same already. |
| 61 |
> |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
So you dont like one framework for all multi-slot languages and prefer |
| 64 |
having each one using their own solution? Or do you just dislike my idea |
| 65 |
for them and want to use your own suggestion for them? |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
-- |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
Thomas Sachau |
| 70 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
Archives