On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 08:38:10 +0100 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Multiply number of dep types (build, run, install, compile against, > > post, probably more) by number of requirement levels (required, > > suggested, recommended) by number of ABI combinations by number of > > system combinations by whatever else ends up being useful. > > I'm against suggested and recommended. I don't like it in debian and I > won't like it in gentoo. the rest shouldn't interest an ebuild by > itself but should be handled by the package manager.
The package manager can't. It needs to be told -- there's no way to guess up front (or, indeed, after the fact) what dependencies really are. > bad users of tools are always present, by itself autotools gives > support and usually works out of box. No, autotools doesn't give support. It doesn't, for example, have any way of generating source files using a program that's part of the package that requires a library that's part of the package. The sad fact is, no matter how you use autotools in non-trivial cases you'll end up breaking *something*, and cross compiling is the least visible thing to break. > > Tree branching will very quickly become unmanageable. Users will be > > forced to choose a branch, but useful features will be spread across > > different branches. > > Only if you don't manage it correctly. > > I know what I'm doing on linux and it is _quite_ branched. That's because things get merged in quickly... -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
