The image question
Yves de Champlain
yves at macports.org
Thu Mar 8 16:21:30 PST 2007
Le 07-03-08 à 15:09, Jordan K. Hubbard a écrit :
> On Mar 8, 2007, at 10:05 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>> The one thing we would loose is the potential for ports to depend
>> on a specific version of another port that was installed but not
>> 'active' (ie, you could have multiple versions of some library
>> port installed with ports that needed each version linked against
>> the one they wanted without having to change the normal install
>> layout of that library). I _think_ this is something that jkh has
>> wanted ever since images were first implemented.
> Amen, bruddah. It is absolutely one of the biggest wins to staging
> things through an archive (or depot) and it gets around a problem
> that may be "corner case" in some respects but also represents one
> of the most pernicious problems in software husbandry today. It's
> sort of akin to the fragile base class problem in C++. You don't
> run into it that often, but when you do to any serious extent, it's
> basically a show-stopper. You're screwed at that point and every
> solution is a work-around at best.
> Are we really saying that in the year 2007, we're just going to
> keep punting on the problem rather than following a good potential
> solution the rest of the way even though there's short-term pain to
> be suffered in order to get there? I know it's a pain in the ass
> to force ports to point themselves into the depot, but not THAT big
> of a problem. There are many ports which are already used to
> adding a ton of -I and -L lines to attach themselves to multiple
> dependencies, we just need to do that in a systematic fashion for
> everything in the dependency list (and add better explicit version
> information to our deps, which is an accounting win anyway).
> Also, I hasten to point out that even if you're going to be a
> wussie about solving the n-way dependency problem, archive mode is
> still useful as an analog to Linux's /etc/alternatives.
Sorry, but I really have a hard time following you here and reading
this leaves me with a deep feeling of deeply missing the whole point.
I understand that the current image implementation is a step in walk
to something else that will someday be "the real thing". Like, for
example, say "port activate foo" would trigger a mechanism to
activate the right dependencies and deactivate conflicting ones ?
Of course, I could say that it could also be done with tarballs
instead of hard links and you could say that I really missed the
whole point. But anyway, my original question was "can someone
explain ?" rather than "can we dump this crap ?".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the macports-users