tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: multi-variant packages and bulk builds

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 08:23:28PM +0300, Aleksey Cheusov wrote:
> When you say "to organize" you mean dependancies between
> packages having options?
> First of all, all options should be splitted into two categories.
> Category 1: options with GLOBALLY THE SAME SEMANTICS,
>    that is option with the same semantics for ALL packages.
>    For example, disabling -x11 option should ALWAYS mean
>    "no X support at all", and disabling -ssl option should ALWAYS
>    mean "no ssl support at all" for ALL packages.
> Category 2: options meaning different things for different packages.
>    Solutions:
>     a) avoid options of this category at all. That is, all package-specific
>        options MUST have a uniq name.
>     b) mark such options somehow and use this marker.

This is already the policy.  Whether or not it is properly respected is
another debate, but feel free to send patches.  Also, they're supposed
to be documented.  Again, patches welcomed.

> After this, I presume dependancies can be set relatively easily.
> If, say, package A depends on package B and both they have option, e.g. x11,
> then binary package A-version%x11.tgz depends on  B-version%x11.tgz
> and package A-version%nox11.tgz depends on B-version%nox11.tgz.

There is no reason for options to correlate that way between packages.

Quentin Garnier - -
"See the look on my face from staying too long in one place
[...] every time the morning breaks I know I'm closer to falling"
KT Tunstall, Saving My Face, Drastic Fantastic, 2007.

Attachment: pgpwzQb8EYJMV.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index