From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org)
	by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-17100-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@gentoo.org>)
	id 1GQQjX-0003Ur-Mm
	for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:45:04 +0000
Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with SMTP id k8LFho9H023152;
	Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:43:50 GMT
Received: from smtp1.su.se (smtp1.su.se [130.237.162.112])
	by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k8LFf98u005494
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:41:09 GMT
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by smtp1.su.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48616740F6
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:41:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from smtp1.su.se ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp1.su.se [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP
 id 21280-01-27 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>;
 Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:41:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ext0.ml.kva.se (ext0.ml.kva.se [130.237.201.25])
	by smtp1.su.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBBFA74008
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:41:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from wlan42.mittag-leffler.se (wlan42.mittag-leffler.se [130.237.201.242])
	by ext0.ml.kva.se (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k8LFf81C031722
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:41:08 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC about another *DEPEND variable
From: Duncan Coutts <dcoutts@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
In-Reply-To: <200609211111.31539.vapier@gentoo.org>
References: <45126B07.6030403@gentoo.org>
	 <200609210952.27835.vapier@gentoo.org>
	 <1158850564.16173.97.camel@localhost>
	 <200609211111.31539.vapier@gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:41:02 +0200
Message-Id: <1158853263.16173.115.camel@localhost>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at smtp.su.se
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.665 tagged_above=-99 required=7
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.665]
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archives-Salt: 52b9a036-52ee-48b6-a629-acf921f74e85
X-Archives-Hash: 0ec432b9ac7023a573d2c5fda2445861

On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 11:11 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 21 September 2006 10:56, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> > If we do go in this direction it'd be great to be able to slot on the
> > ABI and still have dependencies resolved correctly. For example imagine
> > having parallel python-2.3 and 2.4 installations with some libs
> > installed for both. Crucially, deps need to be resolved to the version
> > of a lib with the right ABI.
> 
> ugh, no ... we are not a binary distribution so we should not have to worry 
> about ABI baggage

So we can't ever install two versions of python or ghc at once? That
seems a shame.

> we SLOT based upon API, not ABI

Here's another example; I'm not sure if it passes the ABI/API test:

We would like to support 3 Haskell implementations:
  * GHC which compiles to native code (ELF binaries & static .a libs)
  * Hugs which is an interpreter so installation is .hs source files
  * YHC which compiles to portable bytecode

A single Haskell library is likely to work with all three
implementations. So that's API.

Once installed however each implementation is very different. So that's
incompatible ABI.

This could be 'solved' by having dev-haskell/foo-ghc,
dev-haskell/foo-hugs, dev-haskell/foo-yhc, but that's obviously not the
Gentoo way (though it's pretty much what debian does).

These multiple impls is pretty similar to multiple versions of the same
compiler.

So my point is, I don't think it can be simply dismissed as ABI nonsense
that we don't have to deal with. Being able to SLOT on the compiler
flavour (and possibly version) would allow us to do useful things that
we cannot currently do.

Duncan

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list