Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: tvali <qtvali@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] DB and binary dependency
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:53:02
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] DB and binary dependency by tvali
1 As an addition to code deps discussion.
3 I didnt understand exactly, why bin deps were supposed to be better than
4 what we have now, as i am not yet exactly sure what we have :)
6 Anyway, i see one basic plus of code deps. It's that you may have huge
7 number of codelines, all containing #defines and #ifdefs. You may know that
8 whenever it uses <?.h> header, it needs library ? -- but when you need <?.h>
9 may be somewhat complex case. There may be, for example, 40 different .h
10 files of your own, which include ?.h file -- and each of them may be
11 included only if corresponding useflag is set. In such case, it's easier to
12 describe, which package you need when <?.h> is used than to write all those
13 if's twise in code and some other place, which make sure if you need that ?
14 pack or not.
16 I havent done such thing in reality, so i dont know, how big problem it is
17 for a programmer (how much you have that situation i described in real
18 life), but i guess that this is the problem what binary deps were supposed
19 to solve.
21 --
22 tvali
24 >From a programmer's point of view, the user is a peripheral that types when
25 you issue a read request. -P. Williams
27 If you think your management doesn't know what it's doing or that your
28 organisation turns out low-quality software crap that embarrasses you, then
29 leave. -Ed Yourdon
31 We all agree on the necessity of compromise. We just can't agree on when
32 it's necessary to compromise. -Larry Wall
34 [ ] -
36 -,_Barry


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] DB and binary dependency tvali <qtvali@×××××.com>