[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build
From:       Kent Fredric <kentnl () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2017-02-01 2:29:28
Message-ID: 20170201152928.5c97d805 () katipo2 ! lan
[Download RAW message or body]


On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:04:06 -0600
William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:

> As I said on the bug, the downside is the addition of py3 and ninja as
> build time dependencies, but I think the upside (a build system where
> we don't have to worry about parallel make issues or portability)
> outweighs that.

On principle I would discourage this course of action.

Critical infrastructure should be built on proven and established technology
that has practically become boring to the point of almost-stagnation.

Building things atop of newer technology ends up being like building upon
shifting sands.

And all this is doubly important if you're ever needing to bootstrap.

ie: It might be justifiable to build openrc on top of meson on an establish=
ed
system which already has a working openrc, but building openrc on meson
when you're installing your first Gentoo install is going to be much more p=
ainful
than it should be.

And we should be keeping the @system essentials set required for new instal=
lations
to be as minimal as possible without losing functionality.

And here, I think the objectives of being parallel-make friendly are small
in compare with the overhead for ensuring the dependencies are present and =
working
and usable on a clean install.

But a package that has only been in tree a measly 7 months seems far, far
too premature to switch to being a mandatory part of the critical path.



[Attachment #3 (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]