Richard Freeman posted on Mon, 04 Oct 2010 11:19:29 -0400 as excerpted: > On 10/03/2010 09:26 PM, Duncan wrote: >> The problem is that "in-tree" is a reasonably bounded set of builds, >> while "out-of-tree" is unlimited. Practically speaking, I simply don't >> see how Gentoo can be concerned with "out-of-tree" in general. > > If any other distro had that attitude Gentoo (and other source-based > distros) would be the only ones that provided packages for GCC, since no > other distro requires a functioning toolchain to install packages.
Interesting viewpoint. But I disagree that it is so. Rather, for binary distros, while gcc and the rest of the toolchain may not be /required/ for user-side maintenance of the distribution itself, they're certainly packages that provide a specific set of functionality. As such, they're included in general distributions where such functionality may be desired, for much the same reason KDE or LAMP are included -- they are useful enough for a wide enough segment of the userbase to justify inclusion. OTOH, more specialized distributions may not include them, because they're simply not needed for the designated target usage. In gentoo-speak, binary distributions include toolchain packages not as part of @system, but for those who wish to use them in their @world. If Gentoo were therefore to take a binary distro approach, we'd do split- packages. Much as the binary distros have package-x and package-x-dev (which I'd guess include the *.la files, BTW), we'd have package-x and package-x-la, or some such. Of course, the gentoo version of that is USE flags, FEATURES, etc. Which means we're "in violent agreement!" =:^) and brings us back to... > I like the USE flag proposal because it lets us have our cake and eat it > too. Those who don't need .la files don't get them except where > absolutely essential, and those who need and are willing to live with > tons of them can have it their way. > > Gentoo is about choice... The key-variable (whether USE flag, FEATURE, or a bit more hidden) based trigger does seem the pragmatic solution here. Flameeyes, yes, I understand your objection to it on technical grounds as unnecessary complexity. And I freely admit I'm not technically astute enough (in reality, probably few Gentoo devs are, with certain noted exceptions, of course) to debate you on the merits, there. On the technical side, AFAIAC [1] you win by stipulation. But there's more to life than being technically correct. A centralized la-file-stripper implementation seems to make sense in any case, and once it's centralized, exposing a control variable for it is little additional trouble. Given the choice between allowing for the control variable in ordered to establish the necessary consensus and getting it deployed in months, vs either continuing to debate it for years or simply steamrolling it thru without that option, whatever the technical merits, I agree with rich0, the control variable seems the /clear/ winner, here. Assuming that's the way it ultimately goes, what remains is to settle on the nature of the control variable. There are merits in something slightly hidden, but OTOH, the USE flag idea has merits of its own. It seems to me that the usual solution in similar cases is a USE flag, but masked. So count this as a vote for a masked USE flag. =:^) --- [1] AFAIAC: As Far as I am concerned: http://www.onelook.com/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/bware/dofind.cgi?word=AFAIAC -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
