[Exherbo-dev] On multibuild and PLATFORMS
moben at exherbo.org
Sun Jun 24 01:23:57 UTC 2012
Sorry about the half mail earlier, I accidentally hit send ¯—¯
So here is the second half:
On Sa, 2012-06-23 at 14:58 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > - In targets.conf you can select for which targets each exheres is
> > built (options.conf like syntax)
> Aren't TARGETS basically just syntax for fancy options? So wouldn't
> reusing options.conf work?
> > - Maybe we want automatic injection of targets into MYOPTIONS, maybe
> > we don't (like "target_C: amd64-32")
> Oh, we do, we do. Otherwise you'll all be asking me for targetq and
> target_with and so on...
> Is there any reason we can't think of this stuff as just syntax around
> slightly special options?
Well, I didn't want simply to stuff things that are magic and behave
different from other options into MYOPTIONS.
Also, for the [foo-bar:*(?)?] dep-insertion to work, it is a requirement
that everything sets correct targets (or at least the correct classes)
Especially, it would require every "native-target" exheres to declare
that it uses that target (aka "the C ABI")
The easiest way to get there is to create a mandatory metadata variable.
And we really want (?) deps because (-) can't possibly work with
automagic insertion, especially not once we have multiple targets.
If we really want to turn TARGETS into special options with lots of
magic and rainbows inside them, then that should be done in profiles.
I wouldn't want people to do automagic dependencies insertion from an
It probably makes sense to treat them like options on steroids from the
paludis side, but I'm still convinced the user side should differ a bit.
> > - For all the target-classes in an exheres, paludis appends
> > [target-class:*(?)?] to every dependency, unless specified
> > otherwise via an explicit dependency or a "take any" dependency
> > (someone come up with a syntax)
> I'm going to be mean here and ask how that interacts with the thing in
> my head where "parts" are done as option dependencies where every
> "part" is required to be on unless there's an explicit dep saying "and
> I don't care about this part".
Wouldn't that simply be another class of automatic dep insertion?
Something like "foo/bar[parts:@(?)]"
Where the :@ means: all the parts that foo/bar has defined.
But maybe I just don't know what is goind on inside your head...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Exherbo-dev