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: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 19:22:46
Message-Id: cea53e3c0603201121n5b825b9bo@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] DB and binary dependency by Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
1 2006/3/20, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri <barbieri@×××××.com>:
2 >
3 > I do think you're overcomplicating things where you shouldn't.
4 >
5 > Declaring stuff manually will always break, and to ensure a safe
6 > system, it's better to use compiler information.
7
8 In all cases, dependancy should be based on interfaces, not code.
9
10 All packages may:
11 * Provide an interface
12 * Use an interface
13
14 Depending on useflags, OS and other compile options, it differs, which
15 interfaces are provided and used.
16
17 This is, abstractly, what portage does with interfaces.
18
19 If portage uses some interface, it may need it's header files when
20 building. It may also need another lib for static build. This means
21 that binary check is not possible in all cases.
22
23 Now, the problem is:
24 * How to get an information about a package, which specifies exactly,
25 which interface is needed. How to get it before building in case when
26 this interface is needed to be emerged before compilation [before
27 linking everything together, at least]. Which is a form of this
28 information and what could be read out from that?
29 * How to get information about which interfaces are provided by which
30 packages *not yet emerged* -- by their current use flags(?). This
31 means that it must be possible to know, which interfaces are provided
32 by packages, without first building it -- and the form given by binary
33 check must be the same as the form of descriptor used by this package
34 check.
35
36 So, how to get correct provider together with correct client?
37
38 > So I wouldn't mind fixing it to one package instead of a slot.
39 >
40 > I mean, if user compiled software X-1.0 and it depends on library
41 > Y-2.0, provided at the moment of X-1.0 compilation by package Z-3.0,
42 > then make X-1.0 depend on Z-3.0.
43 >
44 > If you were to remove Z-3.0 or upgrade it or even add other option by
45 > means of USE, have X-1.0 to be recompiled too... you could be even
46 > more correct to make it check CFLAGS too.
47 >
48 > Of course this correctness could piss users, then you could have a
49 > --nodeps or something like that to avoid this and use the old
50 > behaviour.
51 >
52 > --
53 > Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
54 > --------------------------------------
55 > Jabber: barbieri@×××××.com
56 > MSN: barbieri@×××××.com
57 > ICQ#: 17249123
58 > Skype: gsbarbieri
59 > Mobile: +55 (81) 9927 0010
60 > Phone: +1 (347) 624 6296; 08122692@××××××××××××××.com
61 > GPG: 0xB640E1A2 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
62 >
63 > --
64 > gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list
65 >
66 >
67
68
69
70 --
71 tvali
72 (e-mail: "qtvali@×××××.com"; msn: "qtvali@×××××.com";
73 icq: "317-492-912")
74
75 I like net more than life, cause if i do something wrong, then people
76 in net will tell me that i do, so that i can fix it -- people in life
77 will tell others that i do.
78
79 --
80 gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] DB and binary dependency Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri <barbieri@×××××.com>