Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category: dev-build
On 1/8/24 6:32 PM, Gordon Pettey wrote: > There are at least a few generally language-specific build > tools/systems that can, if you're into masochism, be used to build > other languages (Gradle, Maven, etc.), and tools like Ant, which while > primarily used in Java projects is really just a Makefile with > different syntax and core functions in XML. Does making a new category > for explicitly general-purpose tools like Make and friends ambiguate > where the language-specific tools belong? Should other > non-Make-related packages be moved from their current dev-[language] > locations? > > Does dev-util/gyp really belong there, or since it is node-specific, > should there be a dev-js category? gyp is not node specific. It was originally invented by Google, to be Google's build system for the C++ project known as the chromium web browser. It is also famously used to build the C++ project known as Node.js (the interpreter) which node projects use. It is not a very popular build system because it is written by Google and as was only to be expected, Google has deprecated it in favor of GN and thus gyp is largely not used anymore. Its only revdep in Gentoo is mozc, another large C++ project that contains no javascript. IIRC, Node.js forked and maintained gyp internally so they could continue to use it to build C++ software without being concerned about its being abandoned. -- Eli Schwartz OpenPGP_0x84818A6819AF4A9B.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category: dev-build
There are at least a few generally language-specific build tools/systems that can, if you're into masochism, be used to build other languages (Gradle, Maven, etc.), and tools like Ant, which while primarily used in Java projects is really just a Makefile with different syntax and core functions in XML. Does making a new category for explicitly general-purpose tools like Make and friends ambiguate where the language-specific tools belong? Should other non-Make-related packages be moved from their current dev-[language] locations? Does dev-util/gyp really belong there, or since it is node-specific, should there be a dev-js category? On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 8:58 PM orbea wrote: > > On Sun, 07 Jan 2024 17:20:25 +0100 > Michał Górny wrote: > > > On Sun, 2024-01-07 at 09:50 -0500, Yuan Liao (Leo3418) wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 07, 2024 at 03:46:23PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Another idea for a new category: dev-build. Proposed description: > > > > > > > > Build systems and related tools. > > > > > > Have you considered the name 'dev-buildsys'? More straightforward > > > in my opinion, with the cost of a longer length. > > > > I have but I don't like the idea of half-shortcuts. Also, we are > > really including some "building" tools like make that aren't really > > "systems". > > > > I suggest that ninja, samurai, bmake, pmake and make are all in the > same category. Currently the first two are in dev-util while the rest > are in sys-devel while they are all build tools that fill a similar > need. >
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category: dev-build
On Mon, 2024-01-08 at 17:32 -0600, Gordon Pettey wrote: > There are at least a few generally language-specific build > tools/systems that can, if you're into masochism, be used to build > other languages (Gradle, Maven, etc.), and tools like Ant, which while > primarily used in Java projects is really just a Makefile with > different syntax and core functions in XML. Does making a new category > for explicitly general-purpose tools like Make and friends ambiguate > where the language-specific tools belong? Should other > non-Make-related packages be moved from their current dev-[language] > locations? > > Does dev-util/gyp really belong there, or since it is node-specific, > should there be a dev-js category? > In all of my RFCs, I've tried to keep moving stuff out of dev- /* altogether. In general, I'd leave it to the maintainers to decide where a package fits best. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Last rites: x11-misc/albert
# Viorel Munteanu (2024-01-08) # Masked for removal due to licensing issues and possible GPL infringement. # Removal: 2024-02-07. Bug #766129. x11-misc/albert
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category: dev-doc (?)
On Mon, 2024-01-08 at 07:51 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, 07 Jan 2024, Michał Górny wrote: > > > On Sun, 2024-01-07 at 17:58 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > I cannot really see a delineation between app-text and [dev]-doc. > > > > > > For example, packages like psmark, xmlto, or even texi2html are general > > > format manipulation/conversion tools and IMHO app-text is the right > > > category for them. Also, why would you keep pandoc and manpager in > > > app-text but move xmlto and mandoc out of it? > > > It's a bit blurry. My original idea was to keep app-text/ for general- > > purpose text tools (like text editors), while make dev-doc/ focused on > > formats specific to documentation (like code documentation, manpages). > > We already have app-editors for text editors. For the rest, it seems > very blurry indeed and would leave us with (IMHO too many) borderline > cases. > > You certainly have a point that document processing tools are misplaced > in app-doc. Maybe just move them to app-text, which would be a more > minimal change? > I suppose that would work for me. I'll wait a few more days, though, to make sure we won't end up moving them twice over a short period. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
