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 1IeyZr-0004pz-BG for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:47:43 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with SMTP id l98Jb479009800; Mon, 8 Oct 2007 19:37:04 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l98JYsLI007088 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2007 19:34:54 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 460D065544 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2007 19:34:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -0.301 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.301 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.231, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7JHB9eoZIybA for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2007 19:34:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3275D65514 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2007 19:34:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IeyGK-0003mC-6F for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:27:32 +0000 Received: from 82.152.200.225 ([82.152.200.225]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:27:32 +0000 Received: from slong by 82.152.200.225 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:27:32 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Steve Long Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: GNU userland and binary package (WAS: RFC: sh versionator.eclass) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:25:34 +0100 Message-ID: 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> <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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.152.200.225 User-Agent: KNode/0.10.4 Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: aae93f0b-19f3-4248-9d7a-1eddfd28bdb2 X-Archives-Hash: 6a58a92e52002d5897dbd84a2d1d293c Natanael Copa wrote: > 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, 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. ;) >> > > ++ on the general idea: GNU sed, grep, awk, ed and find get my vote (as well as BASH ofc.) (I don't /think/ you need xargs anymore with find .. -exec.) >> > >> > 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. >> Well all you're talking about is BASH and a few others on the machine that builds the binaries afaict. I don't see that as a major imposition. You can then package for downstream using whatever you like. If you're that motivated why not just start hacking on binary support in portage/pkgcore/paludis? There's always open bugs. >> 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? > > Any other alternatives? > > Comments? > I'd just specify BASH (as I don't see the point in making the distinction as it only applies to build machines) and coreutils/findutils etc. Asking everyone to switch coding style for certain functions, just to support the stuff that Gentoo was designed to do from the beginning, seems counter-productive. For every market except embedded, which we've discussed already, BASH is not a major issue: nor are the other tools mentioned. > > Alternative C is what I do today. > Sounds rough :) (I really would recommend #pkgcore as well as there is several years of work to do with binpkgs in that.) Standardising on a certain subset of base GNU tools seems like a good idea to me too. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list