Cool! Let me know if I can download them somewhere to test them when you are done... Also let me know if I can help...
Richie -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Lucian Muresan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Oktober 2005 15:25 An: [email protected] Betreff: Re: [directfb-users] [announce] Gentoo ebuilds for several DirectFB projects, 0.9.22 series and current CVS 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
