At 20:45 Uhr -0500 02.02.2002, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> On Saturday, February 2, 2002, at 08:25 , Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>
>>Kyle> $hash->{variant}{xwin} = the contents of the variant foo
>>Kyle> $hash->{variant}{xwin}{cppflags} = the CPPFlags used when compiling
>>Kyle> with xwindows support
>>
>>I hope you realize you can't use both of these at the same time.
>>If $hash->{variant}{xwin}{cppflags} is active, then $hash->{variant}{xwin}
>>has to be a hashref, stringifying as HASH(0xNNNNN).
>>
>>Common error, want to make sure you're not making same.
>
>I was not referring to those as strings, but I was intending for
>$hash->{variant}{xwin} to be a hashref. The current (old) package
>hash looks like:
>
>{
> cppflags => "-I/usr/X11R6/include",
> ldflags => "-L/usr/X11R6/lib",
> [...]
>}
>
>I was thinking that we could store variants in a form like this
>
>{
> cppflags => "-I/usr/X11R6/include",
> ldflags => "-L/usr/X11R6/lib",
> variants => [ "foo", "bar", "nox" ],
> variant => {
> foo => {
> cppflags => "-I/sw/include/foo/include",
> ldflags => "-L/sw/lib/foo/lib",
> [...]
> },
> bar => {
> cppflags => "-I/sw/include/bar/include",
> ldflags => "-L/sw/lib/bar/lib",
> [...]
> },
> nox => {
> cppflags => "",
> ldflags => "",
> [...]
> },
> },
> [...]
>}
>
>Though ideally, xwindows support would be added (like variant xwin)
>instead of subtracted (like variant nox).
I don't see why we would want to do this, and what advantage it would
give us, but I will be glad to hear your points.
What I thought we should do is that when we read in a single .xinfo
file with all its variants, the "XML reader" module (as opposed to
the "classic info reader" module) would generate multiple packages
from this single template.
So if you have a package "foo" with variants x11, gnome and ssl,
where gnome implies x11, it would generate "full" package entries for
foobar, foobar-ssl, foobar-x11, foobar-gnome and foobar-gnome-ssl in
the internal database of packages. To the rest of Fink, there would
be almost no difference.
"Almost" because we would still add some additional information. But
for most purposes, there would be no difference, e.g. the reader
module would determine once how the CPPFLAGS for the given variant
should look like etc. The rest of Fink has almost no need to know
about this at all. It would also add automatically conflicts/depends
relations between all those variants.
I said "almost" -> we still want to allow the user to be able to
specify in a comfortable fashion which variant to use. Etc.
Having now written down this, I see some things I am not completly
fond of in this scheme, too. Anyway, this should give you some stuff
to think on, too, so that we may converge in the end to "best"
solution :)
Anyway, I am heading of to bed now, it is waaay to late already :)
Max
--
-----------------------------------------------
Max Horn
Software Developer
email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
phone: (+49) 6151-494890
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
