Advanced
Mailing List Archive

Mailing List Archive

  1. Home >
  2. Gentoo>
  3. Dev
Moving some packages around
flameeyes at gmail
Jun 17, 2008, 1:29 AM
Post #1 of 7 (226 views)
Permalink
I've been thinking today that we have a lot of things in sys-devel that
shouldn't probably be there, like pmake and bmake.

I'd propose the following move, if nobody has arguments aginst those:

sys-devel/bmake -> dev-util/bmake
sys-devel/pmake -> dev-util/pmake
sys-devel/bison -> dev-util/bison
sys-devel/flex -> dev-util/flex
sys-devel/autoconf-archive -> dev-util/autoconf-archive
sys-devel/ac-archive -> dev-util/ac-archive
sys-devel/cons -> dev-util/cons
sys-devel/gdb -> dev-util/gdb
sys-devel/omni -> dev-lang/omni

Reasoning for the moves:

- bmake and pmake are additional make commands from the basic one,
G/*BSD will have their own in -ubin or -bin, while the rest of the
system uses GNU make as sys-devel/make;
- bison and flex should get out of the system package set, what clearer
than moving them out of sys-*? They are not so commonly used so there
should no compelling reason to have them installed on every system;
- autoconf-archive and ac-archive are not really something for your
system;
- cons is not commonly used as build system, so should probably be
together with the other not-so-used build systems;
- gdb is not part of the system, this might be a problem for
crossdev...;
- omni is ... well not something I'd look for in sys; plus it's a
compiler so it would probably suite dev-lang better.

There are a few I'm not sure of because I don't know the package at all,
or because I have mixed feelings about them:

sys-devel/remake -> dev-util/remake
sys-devel/sparse -> dev-util/sparse
sys-devel/distcc -> dev-util/distcc
sys-devel/icecream -> dev-util/icecream
sys-devel/m4 -> dev-lang/m4
sys-devel/patch -> app-text/patch
sys-devel/prelink -> sys-apps/prelink (something else? It's not a devel
package...)
sys-devel/autogen -> dev-util/autogen
sys-devel/dev86 -> dev-lang/dev86
sys-devel/bin86 -> dev-lang/bin86
sys-devel/gettext -> app-i18n/gettext (well, it's part of system for
G/FBSD, but I'd rather have deps expressed properly...)

Yes these are a lot of moves, sincerely I think sys-* categories are a
bit bloated as they are, and I suppose we should start moving the things
around rather than waiting forever ad ever..

--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
Re: Moving some packages around [ In reply to ]
genone at gentoo
May 11, 2008, 7:30 PM
Post #2 of 7 (228 views)
Permalink
On Mon, 12 May 2008 02:58:55 +0200
flameeyes@gmail.com (Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò) wrote:

> - bison and flex should get out of the system package set, what
> clearer than moving them out of sys-*?

"system" and the sys-* categories don't have much of a relationsship,
so that's no argument IMO.

> Yes these are a lot of moves, sincerely I think sys-* categories are a
> bit bloated as they are, and I suppose we should start moving the
> things around rather than waiting forever ad ever..

I don't consider that to be a valid reason when looking at the
following numbers:

$ ls -1 /srv/portage/porttree/dev-util/ |wc -l
265
$ ls -1 /srv/portage/porttree/sys-devel/ |wc -l
41

~40 packages isn't much for any category, if you really want to
relocate packages you could just as well eliminate the entire category.

Marius
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: Re: Moving some packages around [ In reply to ]
ulm at gentoo
May 17, 2008, 4:15 PM
Post #3 of 7 (225 views)
Permalink
>>>>> On Mon, 12 May 2008, Ryan Hill wrote:

> flameeyes@gmail.com (Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò) wrote:

>> - bison and flex should get out of the system package set, what
>> clearer than moving them out of sys-*? They are not so commonly
>> used so there should no compelling reason to have them installed on
>> every system;

> both are required to build our toolchain.

A Lexical Analyser and a Parser Generator are also required by
IEEE Std 1003.1 (aka POSIX) as part of the C-Language Development
Utilities.

So it doesn't make much sense to remove flex and bison from system.

Ulrich
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: Moving some packages around [ In reply to ]
ulm at gentoo
May 18, 2008, 7:50 AM
Post #4 of 7 (234 views)
Permalink
>>>>> On Sun, 18 May 2008, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:

>> A Lexical Analyser and a Parser Generator are also required by
>> IEEE Std 1003.1 (aka POSIX) as part of the C-Language Development
>> Utilities.

> IIRC POSIX mandates vi too, and we don't have that in system.

No, it's optional ("User Portability Utilities option", POSIX2_UPE).
"ed" is required by POSIX, though. ;-)

Ulrich
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: Moving some packages around [ In reply to ]
dirtyepic at gentoo
Jun 17, 2008, 1:29 AM
Post #5 of 7 (226 views)
Permalink
On Mon, 12 May 2008 02:58:55 +0200
flameeyes@gmail.com (Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò) wrote:

> - bison and flex should get out of the system package set, what
> clearer than moving them out of sys-*? They are not so commonly used
> so there should no compelling reason to have them installed on every
> system;

both are required to build our toolchain.

> - gdb is not part of the system, this might be a problem for
> crossdev...;

it's part of the sourceware tree. i think it should stay in sys.

> sys-devel/patch -> app-text/patch

:(

> sys-devel/gettext -> app-i18n/gettext (well, it's part of system for
> G/FBSD, but I'd rather have deps expressed properly...)

:( (ok, less so than the one above)

> sys-devel/distcc -> dev-util/distcc
> sys-devel/icecream -> dev-util/icecream

sys-cluster?



> Yes these are a lot of moves, sincerely I think sys-* categories are a
> bit bloated as they are, and I suppose we should start moving the
> things around rather than waiting forever ad ever..

I guess I don't see the point. If you do move them, don't forget about
documentation changes.


--
fonts, gcc-porting, by design, by neglect
mips, treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

Attached Files:

Re: Moving some packages around [ In reply to ]
dirtyepic at gentoo
Jun 17, 2008, 1:29 AM
Post #6 of 7 (234 views)
Permalink
On Sun, 11 May 2008 19:46:36 -0600
Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I guess I don't see the point. If you do move them, don't forget
> about documentation changes.

Also consider that people searching for bugs about dev-util/ccache for
example won't find many results.

--
fonts, gcc-porting, by design, by neglect
mips, treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

Attached Files:

Re: Moving some packages around [ In reply to ]
flameeyes at gmail
Jun 17, 2008, 1:29 AM
Post #7 of 7 (231 views)
Permalink
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> writes:

> A Lexical Analyser and a Parser Generator are also required by
> IEEE Std 1003.1 (aka POSIX) as part of the C-Language Development
> Utilities.
>
> So it doesn't make much sense to remove flex and bison from system.

IIRC POSIX mandates vi too, and we don't have that in system.

--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

©2024 GT.net. A Gossamer Threads company.
5th Floor, 455 Granville St., Vancouver, BC V6C 1T1, Canada | Legal