Unger Richard wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> I've been working on exactly the same thing, it seems you were faster!! 
> Excellent work!
> 
> I have some comments/criticisms for handling the CVS ebuilds:
> 
> Might I suggest the following?
> -> For actual DFB releases, a ebuild like DirectFB-0.9.22.ebuild is ideal.
> -> For CVS releases, DirectFB-0.9.23 is not ideal, unless you go for a 
> specific CVS Tag, since the version will not 'stick'. Ie if I install the 
> ebuild today and again in 1 Week I will get different builds since the 
> version in CVS has changed.
> Other projects (for example enlightenment r17) get around this by creating an 
> ebuild like:
>   DirectFB-9999.ebuild
> The '9999' is a dummy version number and stands for 'CVS Head' - ie the most 
> recent version possible. The '9999' ebuilds are typically marked ~x86 so if 
> you want a clean system just use the x86 builds, to risk CVS, use 
> ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86"
> 
> The advantage is that you can accommodate both normal and CVS based ebuilds 
> under the same package name, rather than having to resort to 
> 'DirectFB-0.9.22' and 'DirectFB-cvs-0.9.23', which then makes it hard to code 
> for dependencies in ebuilds.

This sort of dependency mess DirectFB / DirectFB-cvs is what I was
trying to avoid, and didn't know about the magic 9999 version meaning
'CVS Head'.

> Further, in this system you don't need to control the version via USE flags, 
> which could potentially be quite confusing:
> -> eg: a DirectFB-0.2.23 ebuild with USE="cvs_directfb" will be newer than a 
> DirectFB-0.2.24 ebuild without!
> -> eg: mixing USE="cvs_*" flags will result in compile problems galore - 
> these will get worse as the versions in CVS get ahead of the released versions

Ok, this would indeed make life easier, but then it would require that
non-9999 versions are not masked by the ~x86 flag, which they are in
older DirectFB builds.

> What do you think?

I think you're right and I will try this, it shouldn't be hard at all.
Thanx for your input,

Lucian Muresan

_______________________________________________
directfb-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.directfb.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/directfb-users

Reply via email to