[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [bug-gsrc] unification of code of gsrc and biosrc
From: |
Brandon Invergo |
Subject: |
Re: [bug-gsrc] unification of code of gsrc and biosrc |
Date: |
Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:10:57 +0100 |
On Thu, 2016-06-16 at 00:07 -0700, carl hansen wrote:
> "Fortunately, I think it shouldn't have any harmful effect for the users
> if it's implemented all at once."
>
> No LONG TERM harmful effect...
>
> I have decided to expedite. I'm using too much time. I, like Donald Trump,
> am supremely confident, I'll skip caution, and just do it and we can fiddle
> with
> it after. Need to write a NEWS item to warn the user.
> will need to do
>
> booststrap
> configure --prefix=WHATEVERITWAS
OK!
> questions: Use "pkg/ directory?" Yes
> (Requires changed line in every gsrc Makefile)
I also particularly like the "gar" directory in GSRC, which will also
require changing "include ../../gar.mk" to "include ../../../gar/gar.mk"
> Actually merge the biosrc packages? Yes
> They are all libre software.
> Maybe someone who came for GNUjump will try something new like blast,
> and vice versa.
Hm...GSRC used to contain non-GNU packages (mostly for dependencies) and
I eventually removed them because the cost of maintaining was too high.
Since then, GSRC has just been a way to automate the installation of GNU
packages. As such, I would recommend against merging the packages from
biosrc, but if you're very keen to do it I won't argue against it.
> Move packages around directories in pkg/ ? Yes
> Attempt logic and nonredundancy, high virtues.
Do you mean here to classify the packages? Would the structure be:
pkg/gnome
pkg/gnu
pkg/gnustep
or
pkg/libs
pkg/dev
pkg/apps
or something else?
-brandon