| 1 |
On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 19:40 +0200, tvali wrote: |
| 2 |
> I was thinking about it, too, and found something i do like maybe |
| 3 |
> more. It would be not binary, but code dependancy. This is limited to |
| 4 |
> specific languages, then, but after all, there may also be different |
| 5 |
> binary dependencies, too [for example, you may depend on fonts & |
| 6 |
> images from another package]. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Ok, my thought is like that. Lets imagine a simple c file: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> #ifdef usepackagex |
| 11 |
> #include <packagex.h> |
| 12 |
> #endif |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> As it is simple to see, this file could be used to calculate |
| 15 |
> non-binary dependency, inluding useflags. And there is a plus -- tool, |
| 16 |
> which just reads those #ifdef's and #includes, could easily |
| 17 |
> understand, which flags make up which dependancy, without building |
| 18 |
> package again and again with different useflags. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
There are a few reasons why this won't work :-) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
First: What if I have assembler? python? perl? |
| 23 |
Your example is limited to the C preprocessor. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Second: You'll have to get this depend information applied by upstream |
| 26 |
unless you want to patch every file ... and as upstream I'd laugh at |
| 27 |
anyone proposing that |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Third: Since there is no easy way of generating this automatically |
| 30 |
you'll have to replicate every bit of dependency information that is in |
| 31 |
the ebuilds. That will be much work, you won't keep ebuilds synchronized |
| 32 |
to the included dep info ... |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
So in short, interesting concept, but I don't see how it can work and |
| 35 |
how it is an improvement over what we have now. Please don't reinvent |
| 36 |
the wheel ;-) |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Patrick |
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move |
Archives