1 |
On Tuesday 24 March 2009 12:35:44 Philipp Riegger wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:23:10 +0100 |
3 |
> |
4 |
> Philipp Riegger <lists@××××××××××××.de> wrote: |
5 |
> > On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:45:30 +0200 |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > mmacleod@××××××××××.za wrote: |
8 |
> > > > Then have a hash generate set up where it would take |
9 |
> > > > the name, version, and use flags, cflags and hash just that |
10 |
> > > > information. |
11 |
> > > |
12 |
> > > We are talking about two different types of hashes. |
13 |
> > > There would be a hash in the package names in order to tell the |
14 |
> > > difference between package foo compiled with use flag "bar" and |
15 |
> > > package foo compiled without useflag "baa"(It would also have to |
16 |
> > > take into account cflags and dependency versions), this is part of |
17 |
> > > the "improved binary support idea". |
18 |
> > |
19 |
> > I'm not sure if this is doable, but not using hashes would be great. |
20 |
> > It would be cool to encode as much information as possible so that it |
21 |
> > can be decoded again. In any case, there should be a database with |
22 |
> > what the hashes mean, so that users can see "Ok, i use this and that |
23 |
> > CLFAGS and this and that USE-flags, and if i now change that USE-flag |
24 |
> > which I don't really care about and add -pipe to my CFLAGS, I can |
25 |
> > find almost everything I need as binary packages". |
26 |
> |
27 |
> One thing i forgot: Are these CFLAGS and USE-flags hashes per package? |
28 |
> So, If you have 2 different profiles which are the same except 1 USE |
29 |
> flag, would a package not having the flag in IUSE get the same hash in |
30 |
> both profiles? |
31 |
Yes. |