[csw-maintainers] Evaluating Gentoo Prefix

[Peter FELECAN]

"Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński" <maciej at opencsw.org> writes:

> 2013/9/22 Peter FELECAN <pfelecan at opencsw.org>
>> > I'm just putting the idea out there: if we want to do a rebuild, we
>> > could reuse someone else's code.
>>
>> Can you develop a little bit?
>
> Out of many things that GAR does, the most interesting / unique ones
> are modulations, CAS integration and other SVR4-specific things. The
> patching and compilation parts are relatively weak ‒ it has been done
> elsewhere, maybe even better than what we did. We could see if it's
> feasible to reuse that work. For example, instead of calling
> CONFIGURE_SCRIPTS, GAR could shell out to call portage to build and
> install a specific piece of code. Then it would merge the installed
> image and proceed as usual. It's just one idea.

The patching is quite reasonable, especially since there is an internal
git. Anyhow, all is reduced to a differential process that is well
mastered here and there.

The build chain is not really part of gar; we have hooks which are quite
versatile. The configuration, build, test and installation of a project
are an integral part of it: if it uses autotools all is set; the real
issues are when the quality of the project in this area is low.

> Why I think it could be feasible? Our current code hardcodes /opt/csw
> and other variants of the CSW string in many, many places. To build
> into a different prefix, e.g. ${HOME}/myproject of an unprivileged
> user, we would have to correct countless places in our build recipes.
> The required amount of work could be larger than adopting a different
> codebase.

This is exactly what I doubt. Because I don't see the relation between
changing the prefixes in the recipes and using another code base. I
wonder if you are not proposing to use another set of recipes. But you
are a nice guy and will clarify, isn't it?
-- 
Peter