Re: [gentoo-dev] Discussion: alternative compatible utilities

[Alec Warner <warnera6@egr.msu.edu>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Don't attempt to ignore the complexity because it sucks and gives you a
headache.  The complexity of multiple kernels, userlands, arches and
platforms exists whether you like it or not.  The key being the
management of the complexity.  Currently the tools perform poorly
because it's been primarly GNU userland + Linux kernel + random arches.
 The first two are easy to take care of and the third has arch teams.
Thus we probably need more keywords ( x86-fbsd-bsd...etc it's been said
before ) and we need more people to keyword stuff ( arch-kernel-userland
).  I think the big issue is to adapt to the new requirements without
making the current tools an overpatched mess.

Part of the issue I see is everyone is only focused on their little
problem.  X, Y or Z that I need is broken and I need fix foo; it's
talked about on IRC, it seems to work, it's implemented.  Then a week
later someone who wasn't on at time of discussion notes that it broke
something and and now needs to be 'fixed'.  I think Flameeyes has done
a pretty good job keeping everyone informed of Gentoo/fbsd's needs and
offering pretty good solutions on how to fix them in a general way.  I
think part of the problem is that this doesn't happen often enough and
we end up with a bunch of hacks that need to be integrated together.
- -Alec Warner
Ajec

Dan Meltzer wrote:

>Well it would be nice to have it all abstracted, wouldn't stablizing a
>package get exponetially harder? Not only would each arch need to be
>tested, each combination of packages on each arch would need to be
>tested, if FEX openpam became usable on linux instead of just
>linuxpam, each arch that stableized would now need to say works for
>this arch for linuxpam, and works for this arch for openpam, which
>would cause lots and lots of keywords mess.
>
>Or am I misunderstanding your post?
>
>On 6/16/05, Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Let me explain: on Gentoo/Linux systems, all the base utilities
(make, tar,
>>>sed, etc etc) are GNUish; on Gentoo/FreeBSD they are BSDish; on
Gentoo/Darwin
>>>I don't really know :P
>>>This limits a bit the user because to use other kind of utilities it
must use
>>>aliases and he can't change, for example, the tar used by portage or
by other
>>>scripts.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Surely it would be interesting for developer that want to make sure
>>their code will build in other userspaces w/out switching os,
>>and if that won't be so painful, would worth testing it.
>>
>>Obviously having it now isn't really needed. Thinking about that when
>>committing/updating ebuild would be good.
>>
>>( still I do hate bsd core utils implementations but that is just my
>>opinion =) )
>>
>>lu
>>
>>--
>>
>>Luca Barbato
>>
>>Gentoo/linux Developer          Gentoo/PPC Operational Leader
>>http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
>>
>>--
>>gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
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=/Jnb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list