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

  • From: Ingo Weinhold <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx>
  • To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:55:28 +0100

On 2010-03-04 at 13:35:14 [+0100], Axel Dörfler <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:
> 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),

I'm afraid it's used in other places, too, e.g. bash's tab completion (try 
"sed " + tab for instance). sed is just a tool that everyone considers to 
be available.

> 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.

Indeed.

So I take it you tend towards outsourcing mandatory stuff, right?

CU, Ingo

Other related posts:

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