From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B9801382C5 for ; Wed, 16 May 2018 04:22:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CF478E090F; Wed, 16 May 2018 04:22:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lf0-x233.google.com (mail-lf0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DBADE08E2 for ; Wed, 16 May 2018 04:22:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-x233.google.com with SMTP id h9-v6so3498507lfi.0 for ; Tue, 15 May 2018 21:22:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=FsLKHqARmMcFCSfCy7mO8guNnnvlWMVw/G/nyvWLFw0=; b=eeUdz4LYi8Wia9ycw4fn1LTGyz3Exqs7LL8aqjgSU0hZ/Y4UVTTFqs6GOWed+aUs+J kesoisof7rD2M43UtBgJe1rH8HvVeE7jD9jOMAunv9UPrGOg97CKTHmh+1JcgbR8UJsi 1Z+L5UO9jKDJFltYj20iTMYpa+AYuv0yvObboc2xm8rMXG1uGh9JroFWjpQwt/V7EvXb wwkn5D435K/NXxaZFJvI1YYPU14x3ngHnEzv3ncjsWufHIonXygdw7lglvjgiaZekqQI HTa5mqLYg3DES9s8y7LEmWzvV5x8HxXeOBGqVSRNNbmOUKK/AKvVqfR8yhHFfn9Nfa16 Sj9g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=FsLKHqARmMcFCSfCy7mO8guNnnvlWMVw/G/nyvWLFw0=; b=XqahpU7/A1f4GmZzumkYMCZ6wE/ZZHHA4fgR/BejV8jMAxpBzL7jU2LvzABTV1cXBy pJzhMVIZu/kh7Njp5kuYF97wh2SeQrbLvyNbInyWD2ObzOVMiPtQ2psxHAqJri+DAu7C YEpMMZ/6OMgWMnNI/khLWneJvW1Y1OxfOklpako6snmypE9pB1pN2vhBA0A1BCoT9CWP bxWwBNkIu4bR56/U8tAa875arN4pB+ZNPoZeivYJ1zmdBHe5TS/Zk9zIoiWuYBoOGYM6 6EjUuwiukyzcREG1hVj1hYrLlR4rfyn6de1xnKVk/eyrPuCXefvJS02F1pxEvKH/N2iN 8akA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPweBlqcTWeBJyjisoR0rKCd5J5aVxqSw82NldXlIT0byd2S8FIzV kt8e456OJDcxbeidnb4Pu69xxlHZUd/Tqtmcecs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZpmw7WJVah4193enOTfh16pWgi/M0jWpQizSMsemNt4v29+zLQwGSIRCWmJY9LWSZ3kt+IJDJJqm0GZT7A8NDc= X-Received: by 2002:a19:1498:: with SMTP id 24-v6mr13267217lfu.128.1526444523336; Tue, 15 May 2018 21:22:03 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.46.156.8 with HTTP; Tue, 15 May 2018 21:22:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <2532421.f3YmpD0exa@gump> From: R0b0t1 Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 23:22:02 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] multiversion ebuilds To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Archives-Salt: 79a60b57-add9-4b11-b3f8-b826417209bd X-Archives-Hash: 699ef6ea35aaa1ccd0c984d52c9e6197 On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 11:15 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote: > Mathy Vanvoorden posted on Tue, 15 May 2018 11:32:30 +0200 as excerpted: > >> 2018-05-12 14:20 GMT+02:00 Gerion Entrup : >> >> just an idea for now. But what you think about multiversion ebuilds? >>> Technically this could be realized with the following line in the ebuild >>> itself: >>> ``` >>> VERSIONS=( 3.0.11 3.0.12 3.1 ) >>> ``` >>> >> >> I like the idea of multiversion ebuilds but why would you complicate the >> process by putting it in a variable? Why not just use symlinks and have the >> following: >> >> foobar/foobar-1.x >> foobar/foobar-1.1.ebuild -> foobar-1.x >> foobar/foobar-1.2.ebuild -> foobar-1.x >> foobar/foobar-2.x >> foobar/foobar-2.1.ebuild -> foobar-2.x > > AFAIK symlinks aren't allowed in the gentoo tree, with the given reason > being that some users, particularly those with limited net access and > thus "sneakernetting" from where they /do/ have net access, may place > the tree on or transfer it via no-symlink-support FAT32 or similar, > perhaps downloading it from an MS machine or the like. > > Of course users may use symlinks on their own copies, but they're not > allowed in the official tree. > > Tho perhaps that can be reevaluated. But while there's more connectivity > now than over a decade ago when that policy was created, I expect there's > still those paying by the meg or gig for net access locally, that won't > enjoy having their sneakernet sync routine disrupted. > Cygwin and MSYS(2) are currently mostly supported by Prefix, so using symlinks might kill them as well. There is some kind of symlinking support for NTFS now but it is very primitive. Cheers, R0b0t1