[haiku-development] Re: Removing ported code from the repository, replacing with prebuilt packages (was: [haiku-commits] r35705)

  • From: "Axel Dörfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:35:14 +0100

Ingo Weinhold <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2010-03-03 at 19:28:28 [+0100], Matt Madia <mattmadia@xxxxxxxxx> 
> wrote:
> [...]
> >  * for something as "core" as `mv` and `cp`, we can just have them 
> > in our 
> >  repo.
> I don't see much difference to, say, sed. If we break self-
> containedness of 
> the build, we can as well do it thoroughly. That would include the 
> even more 
> "core" bash.

I think there is a certain appeal to having a "works-out-of-the-box" 
repository (and the sed problem in particular can be easily worked 
around as Philippe suggested), but other than that, outsourcing 
everything as much as possible makes sense, too.

In any case, it makes sense to maintain a current set of patches at 
Haiku ports (if not possible to send upstream), and while then 
duplicating those?

As long as the mandatory packages are available, I guess no one will 
really care. For porters, the work will increase, but porting Haiku 
itself should be what's important, not some tools - and since those are 
all userland tools, I think that's acceptable.
And finally, not running configure again for a different target might 
also introduce some bugs if their configure script has architecture 
depending parts.

> A criterion for outsourcing should be that the package in question 
> can be 
> cross-compiled. If that is not possible, it would be a major pain for 
> architecture ports.

Makes sense to me.

Bye,
   Axel.

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. haiku-development
  3. Archive
  4. 03-2010