Hi Michael, Michael Everitt <m.j.ever...@iee.org> writes:
> On 08/04/19 05:17, Mo Zhou wrote [as excerpted]: >> I'm going to participate the gsoc project "BLAS and LAPACK runtime"[1]. >> However it seems to pose a significant change on Gentoo Science Team's >> packages, so I'd better ask for approval first before really working >> on this, in case anybody disagree with the proposal. >> >> <snip> >> The proposed solution involes no usage of USE flag, or eselect feature. >> >> Objective of this project: >> >> 1. Integrate update-alternatives mechanism into Gentoo's reference blas, >> i.e. netlib blas' packaging. > > Whilst I'm, by all means, no expert on this; I think when you look into it, > you'll find that the eselect and update-alternatives functions are highly > equivalent, so you should find it feasible to do the port the other way > around, and translate the 'update-alternatives' to 'eselect'. Ideally if > you can keep within the frameworks Gentoo already provides, this should > make integration and maintenance a little easier! > > Otherwise, it sounds like you've got the size of the problem in hand, and I > wish you all the best with the project! > Best regards, I agree with your points. I think porting the logic of u-a to eselect will make the project go smoother than porting vanilla u-a to Gentoo. The functionality of the 2 frameworks largely overlap. I could imagine the resistance of Gentoo community to use u-a along with eselect or adopt u-a over eselect. Yours, Benda
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
