Hi Riccardo, Am 21.05.2014 um 20:34 schrieb Riccardo Mottola <[email protected]>: > On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 18:44, Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński wrote: >> If it gets hard, maybe it makes sense to build just one version for >> starters. You can give packages names with the future dual build in >> mind, but only do one build for now. I think it's good to release a >> simpler set of packages earlier. > > Fine, the two packages would be quite similar. Before committing > something with the wrong name. > > Let me understand better and explain. > 1) I currently have package "x" (that is gnustep-back) and thus it is > named in my opencsw directory > 2) one of the modulations needs to be choosen. it is not a feature tha > tyou can activate, but a choice that you need to make > 3) as package name do you refer to the actual name in the directory? > > that is, I have gnustep-back, that can be built either "xlib" or > "cairo". There is no "gnustep-back" without this choice. > > All remaining packages will depend on either one or the other, you can't > have both. > > Is it now correct to commit gnustep-back? perhaps with a first > hard-configured version to which we make modulations then work?
I suggest to make one CSWgnustep-back which uses xlib and registers xlib as alternative. All packages depend on this one. If you want the more elaborate cairo you install CSWgnustep-back-cairo which just ships the changed files from the alternatives and these alternatives have a higher precedence than the xlib one. This is the same way as we do gnuplot. Does this sound reasonable? Best regards — Dago -- "You don't become great by trying to be great, you become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard that you become great in the process." - xkcd #896
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
