[paludis-user] Paludis on non-Gentoo & non-root operation
ciaran.mccreesh at googlemail.com
Fri May 16 19:41:44 UTC 2008
On Fri, 16 May 2008 20:33:36 +0100
"Tom Cooksey" <tomcooksey at googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> Would a new tree like he's proposing have to be embedded only?
> > Embedded-only is a bit strong. But I'm of the opinion that trying to
> > have a single tree designed to cover both embedded / small systems
> > and desktops and servers is considerably more work than having two
> > trees.
> Well I would hope it would become a general purpose build system, to
> cover embedded & desktop systems alike. I think use flags have the
> potential to be _very_ powerful indeed, allowing a single package
> tree to be used for embedded (with minimum flags set) and full-blown
> desktop systems alike.
Use flags don't scale well to this. Simple example:
Embedded systems don't want to install headers for libfoo, so libfoo
gets a headers USE flag that's on for desktop profiles and off for
embedded profiles. But then, every package that needs libfoo has
to explicitly DEPEND upon libfoo[headers] and RDEPEND upon libfoo
(without the use dependency). This doesn't scale well either to adding
new separations or to lots of dependencies.
Solving this one, if it can be solved, requires EAPI changes. It might
be possible to do something like this (using labels rather than the
three *DEPEND EAPI 0 vars):
and then introduce an explicit "I don't care about the value" use
dependency class, with no use dependency meaning "take the use
dependency kind from MYOPTIONS".
Or there might be better ways... Or it might just not be doable...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the paludis-user