[pacman-dev] Alternatives system brainstorm
Daan van Rossum
d.r.vanrossum at gmx.de
Mon Oct 28 10:30:41 UTC 2019
* on Thursday, 2019-10-24 10:10 +1000, Allan McRae <allan at archlinux.org> wrote:
> Compare that to the complexity of the original proposal example for python2:
In this design, will /usr/bin/python be owned by a package like in the selector-provider design?
> In the PKGBUILD:
provides=('python-provider') #-- unnecessary if backend infers this
> And then provide a file python.alternative containing:
> /usr/bin/python -> python2
> /usr/bin/idle -> idle2
mkdir -p usr/bin
ln -s /usr/bin/python2 usr/bin/python
ln -s /usr/bin/idle2 usr/bin/idle
> Yes - this potentially results in more complexity in the backend (I'm
> not sure it will), but is dead simple for a packager.
Complexity for developers vs complexity for users is a delicate tradeoff.
The python.alternative design involves slightly less text to write for a maintainer, OK, but splits it over two files instead of one.
A function is more powerful than a list of key-value pairs. Can you handle alternative lua include files with a list of key-value pairs? I imagine there may be exceptional situations where the extra power will be nice to have in the future.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the pacman-dev