From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IeuK1-0000mE-3p for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:15:05 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with SMTP id l98F4emG012741; Mon, 8 Oct 2007 15:04:40 GMT Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.169]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l98F2evp010192 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2007 15:02:41 GMT Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id j3so850787ugf for ; Mon, 08 Oct 2007 08:02:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:from:to:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IisPqboNqJvyiH9Lvt+MJ/0PEmOY9XPHdwK8xgWeYvw=; b=Xo4wkIQN0H1KLNHTcivkMfT++DqX5GSwiJbspP6ezx/VnXXrxnxdagWPtwtOr2//5XXSL+WURTT20EcyP7cU7jqj0IOUssKQeuFDSWj4CH+ynelSV7KTQOHXmLILbVchoaFW2uwtu2/ETHmO/LXdA8cPZyVR0oaCnBrL86K36EA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:subject:from:to:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=c1VNMdXbpdMUExT6n5C0JCZcxY/EBZmWPPZz8TLEcIbZO+xTjtXMEhgMXDqfCEljc+B7dGvODPC/kf1WHM0DEe0gDGpEC1xpAqTeNRNuSACQ8H9uAA3twGihNonIy+67Sn4Rq9Uz42sUNAk7290HCrXqaNIw4ff48JTJTedVolA= Received: by 10.67.29.12 with SMTP id g12mr6930878ugj.1191855760635; Mon, 08 Oct 2007 08:02:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.65.211? ( [213.234.126.134]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 36sm5561880ugb.2007.10.08.08.02.38 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 08 Oct 2007 08:02:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GNU userland and binary package (WAS: RFC: sh versionator.eclass) From: Natanael Copa To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: References: <200710012259.40589.uberlord@gentoo.org> <4709071F.6010900@gentoo.org> <20071007221505.GJ2848@gentoo.org> <200710072151.03442.vapier@gentoo.org> <4709A35B.6070407@gentoo.org> <1191833415.31670.41.camel@nc.nor.wtbts.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:02:37 +0200 Message-Id: <1191855757.31670.75.camel@nc.nor.wtbts.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 46b1479e-3eb2-47b1-902d-c9e4da8595f5 X-Archives-Hash: 95551b029dddfc6811edfd3513fa46d6 On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 06:52 -0700, Alec Warner wrote: > On 10/8/07, Natanael Copa wrote: > > On Sun, 2007-10-07 at 21:26 -0600, Joe Peterson wrote: > > > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > Fabian has summed it up nicely, thanks. i could care less what your userland > > > > is outside of the ebuild environment since it doesnt matter to ebuild > > > > writers. you want a deficient runtime environment, more power to you, but > > > > forcing that environment onto ebuild developers is not acceptable. off the > > > > top of my head, i'd like to see GNU find/xargs added to the ebuild > > > > environment. > > > > -mike > > > > > > Mike, exactly as I said. That's option #2, and I think it could be a > > > great solution. As for deficient, well, that's in the eye of the > > > beholder. ;) > > > > > > -Joe > > > > Question, if you go for #2. Does that mean you will need all the > > required GNU userland to do binary only installs? > > > > It would be highly desireable to be able to do binary installs (write > > your own binary only package manager) without depending on all the GNU > > stuff needed to compile the packages. > > Your own binary only package manager would still need to provide > Option #2; ie you need to have GNU tools installed to process the > binary packages. pkg_* functions could still have GNU stuff in them > and those still get run during a binary package install. If we would like to be able to do binary installs without the GNU tools, what alternatives do we have? Those pops up to my mind: A. move the pkg_* functions out of the ebuild to a separate file. Those have a subset of the EAPI and needs to be posix compliant. B. don't use GNU extensions in pkg_functions and have some way to export them (extract pkg_* functions from environment.bz2). Those can then be used by pre/post script in binary package manager. C. Binary package managers will need to write their own pre/post scripts. Any other alternatives? Comments? Alternative C is what I do today. -nc > > -Alec -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list