| 1 |
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 01:40:01PM +0200, tvali wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 24/03/06, Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Thursday 23 March 2006 21:38, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Cons: |
| 5 |
> > > - it's not the final solution to the problem, as said, interfaces |
| 6 |
> > > would be better... but interfaces would demand much more effort and |
| 7 |
> > > not being automatically generated, would be async and probably |
| 8 |
> > > incorrect at some point |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Interfaces, while nice, would overcomplicate things. They are also not |
| 11 |
> > needed as we have depend atoms. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > Paul |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Interface can be made somewhat automatically checkable. |
| 16 |
Checking the interfaces/symbols sucks however, because you can only do |
| 17 |
it _after_ you've built whatever you're building (packages do adjust |
| 18 |
the defines/typedefs/structs dependant on configure/build options). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
As I stated earlier, bincompat (not binslot paul :P) is the route to |
| 21 |
go- it gives you up front information so a resolver can plan out what |
| 22 |
has to be rebuilt automatically. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
~harring |
Archives