On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:01:10 +0100 "Tom Cooksey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I suspect the problems I've had with portage lie more in the package > tree & ebuilds than portage itself (in which case Paludis wont help?).
Largely correct. Paludis can do better than Portage, but it's still constrained by the tree. > Anyway, what I want is the ability to define my target's profile & > configuration (make.conf) and simply do an "emerge system" to build > everything. Paludis supports multiple separate configuration directories via the --environment switch. > * In addition to the "host" root files system hierarchy, I foresee 2 > others: > - A toolchain hierarchy, including build-time dependency > packages (a.k.a. portage SYSROOT) Yupyup. A normal ebuild repository should cover that. > - A target hierarchy, where packages are installed (a.k.a. > portage ROOT) That'd be a standard VDB repository with root set. > * Ability to only include files required at run-time in the target > hierarchy, i.e. no .a or .h files Paludis can do install file filtering via hooks. In 0.26 this will be quite a lot more flexible than it is in 0.24. > * Possibly a 3rd hierarchy, if required, for configuration & profile > (a.k.a. PORTAGE_CONFIGROOT) That's all covered much more elegantly via specpath. > * Ability to take a totally empty toolchain & target hierarchy and do > an "emerge system" to generate a toolchain & bootable root filesystem > image. You're limited by the ebuilds there. They pretty much assume that you already have a working toolchain and you're creating a more or less identical toolchain. > * Separate build system from distribution, so people can use > Fedora/Debian/Cygwin/Whatever, install the build system and use it to > make target root filesystems. Again, you're limited by ebuilds there. Some ebuilds rely upon utilities having being patched in a particular way, which won't be the case. > * Ability to use 3rd party toolchains. I've not really thought about > how this could be done too much, perhaps using ASSUME_PROVIDED type > defines for gcc/libc. Again, ebuilds. There's no standard way of doing toolchain things for ebuilds. > Anyway, how well do you think these requirements fit with Paludis? Paludis can do a much better job of things than Portage, but it's still limited to what ebuilds support. Gentoo developers write ebuilds based around certain assumptions about the underlying system; you may have to create your own tree rather than using the Gentoo repository if you don't like these assumptions. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ paludis-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pioto.org/mailman/listinfo/paludis-user
