Re: Setlist maintenance

[Marc Balmer <marc%msys.ch@localhost>]

Am 13.12.2012 um 03:42 schrieb Christos Zoulas <christos%astron.com@localhost>:

> In article 
> <Pine.NEB.4.64.1212121727290.19839%screamer.whooppee.com@localhost>,
> Paul Goyette  <paul%whooppee.com@localhost> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012, Matt Thomas wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Dec 12, 2012, at 5:02 PM, Roland C. Dowdeswell wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 04:52:08PM +0100, Marc Balmer wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> I totally agree with Thor, for more or less the very same reasons
>>>>> (building embedded systems) and I have nothing to add - and thus
>>>>> allow me to top post ;)
>>>> 
>>>> Without getting into the whole discussion, I'd like to add that
>>>> whatever the overall decision that is made, I think that at the
>>>> very least we could automate the shared object handling in shl.mi
>>>> a little bit more.  Things such as implying .so, .so.N, .so.N.M
>>>> and more importantly automatically generating the compat shared
>>>> object libraries in md.*.
>>> 
>>> and debug libraries as well.
>> 
>> Yeah - I always forget those!  (Thankfully, njoly@ usually takes care of 
>> my forgetfulness!)
> 
> And profile, and .debug stab files for programs, and the list goes on.
> There is so much that can be automated...

What would you think about the idea of replacing the setlist we have now with a 
list of components?  I could then specify that I want e.g. a dhcp client or 
webserver in my build/install and the detailed list of files gets generated 
from the list of components.

This scheme would allow for taylored system, yet avoid the fiddling with set 
lists details.