On 5/15/06, Carlo Calica <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/15/06, Hisham Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/13/06, Carlo Calica <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Package r3p1 might be built against GCC 3.3 and r3p2 built against GCC
> 4.0, both having been built from the same recipe, r3, which lists "GCC
> [3.0, )" as a build dependency.
>
Ok. Good example. So r3p1 is to make the package unique and not
encode metadata (build info). I guess it depends if we update
packages individually or per release. If "per release", we can assume
some things (like major GCC ver).
I think individually is better -- a more fluid release model is
becoming the norm in the Linux world nowadays. Also, occasionally the
same version of a rarely updated package is used in two releases of
the distro, so it may be necessary to release a new revision of the
same version of a package.
> Different kinds of information that could be written/extracted:
>
> * BuildDependencies: handwritten file, in recipe, listing what's
> needed to build ("GCC [3.0,)")
> * RuntimeDependencies: handwritten file, in recipe and package,
> listing what's needed to run a package ("GCC [3.0,4.0)", maybe (not a
> particularly good example))
> * PackageBuildInformation: generated file, in package, saying what was
> used during build (equivalent to current Dependencies file -- for
> reference only as an aid to write the other files?)
>
VERY happy with these. Each originates at a specific layer.
Good. Think that's the way to go, then.
-- Hisham
_______________________________________________
gobolinux-devel mailing list
gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org
http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
