Subject: Re: Simultaneous builds
To: Jim Wise <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
Date: 01/16/2002 16:04:27
[ On Wednesday, January 16, 2002 at 15:25:05 (-0500), Jim Wise wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Simultaneous builds
> If OBJHOSTNAME and OBJMACHINE are `totally unnecessary' _to_ _you_,
> don't use them -- they're not even on by default, for crying out loud.
And in fact I don't use either feature, nor will I bother to rip them
out of my local copies of pkgsrc and src so long as their existance does
not impose penalties I'm unwilling to accept.
However if the point is to make the knobs and widgets used to control
the pkgsrc build procedure usable by "average" end users (as I have been
clearly told is the goal, and which I have explicitly agreed is a good
goal) then their added complexity is not just totally unecessary, but in
fact something which makes pkgsrc harder for end users to manage. If
one simple and clearly documented knob is sufficient then why add
another which is interdepndent with the first and which affects the
behaviour of the build process in a complex manner?
I've asked several times, very politely, why anyone needs these
particular features (OBJHOSTNAME and OBJMACHINE). I've shown how
everything necessary is possible without them. In reply I have only
recieved such blatantly content free and emotion ridden replies as
yours. Are you completely incapable of analysing your own requirements
and describing them in concrete technical terms?
> I find both of them _very_ useful in different contexts (including
> OBJHOSTNAME, which I was _very_ happy to see added).
Why? What exact requirement, in your environment, do you fulfill with
OBJHOSTNAME that cannot be equally fulfilled with WRKOBJDIR?
I have shown how WRKOBJDIR is sufficient for all the requirements that
have been stated to date. I maintain the existance of any contrary
requirement is theoretically impossible. I have asked for concrete
examples that would prove my theory to be wrong but so far all I've
gotten back is rhetoric and personal opinions that totally ignore the
I await anyone's calm and reasoned reply explaining in concrete
technical terms why OBJHOSTNAME is the only and/or best way to solve
some specific requirement for managing the build process of modules in
pkgsrc. (and the same for OBJMACHINE in tech-toolchain if anyone cares
to take that on too) If you'd rather state a requirement alone and ask
how I would solve it without OBJHOSTNAME or anything similar then please
do so, either here in tech-pkg or in a private reply.
BTW, there are no PRs in the "pkg" category matching "OBJHOSTNAME" or
"hostname". Where was this request to add OBJHOSTNAME discussed in the
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Planix, Inc. <email@example.com>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <firstname.lastname@example.org>