Learn how easy it is to sync an existing GitHub or Google Code repo to a SourceForge project! See Demo

Close

#2028 mingw-dist: gcc package overwhelms basic setup

INSTALLER
closed
Earnie Boyd
Bug
fixed
Unknown
False
2014-08-25
2013-09-04
Keith Marshall
No

The recent restructuring of GCC packaging has polluted the "Basic Setup" installation group with a plethora of unwanted component package references.

I've attached two screenshots; "was.png" shows what we used to have, (and we really don't want any more); "now.png" shows the overwhelming result of the current restructuring.

2 Attachments

Discussion

  • Earnie Boyd
    Earnie Boyd
    2013-09-04

    So the affiliate group needs to move to the component class. Is that possible? Having a package for just the bin component doesn't work well.

     
  • Keith Marshall
    Keith Marshall
    2013-09-05

    So the affiliate group needs to move to the component class. Is that possible?

    No; not without significant modification to mingw-get itself. Affiliates associate with package elements; there is no provision for them to associate with components. I won't change that, unless A. N. Other submits appropriate patches.

    Having a package for just the bin component doesn't work well.

    I don't see why not. It's a logical separation, specifically within the XML, which has always made perfect sense to me, (and I guess, to Chuck and Cesar too, since they've adopted similar packaging strategies). Libraries, and their associated headers and documentation, are logically separate from the tools which may just happen to call on them; (FWIW, this is also completely consistent with the separation Debian uses in their Linux distribution packaging).

    By lumping everything into one package, even though logically distinct, you've actually made the maintenance issue more complex: not only do you still have to maintain links to dummy replacements for the originally separate library packages, (for as long as any user may be expected to possibly still have an older version installed, which could be an unpredictably long time, so effectively forever), we will now have to devise yet another layer of meta-packaging to restore sane behaviour for the first-time user, looking for a simple basic installation.

     
  • Earnie Boyd
    Earnie Boyd
    2013-09-06

    I plan to look at this tomorrow.

     
    • Keith Marshall
      Keith Marshall
      2013-09-06

      You may also need to consider the impact of [#2030].

       

      Related

      Issues: #2030

  • Earnie Boyd
    Earnie Boyd
    2013-09-07

    It's a logical separation, specifically within the XML, which has always made perfect sense to me, (and I guess, to Chuck and Cesar too, since they've adopted similar packaging strategies).

    Actually not so much where gcc-core is concerned. It just happens that gcc-core wasn't affiliated to the MinGW Compiler Suite group. I'm still looking into this.

     
  • Earnie Boyd
    Earnie Boyd
    2013-09-27

    Keith are we supposed to be able to attach more than one group to a package? If so, then it is only picking the first one and if not I'll open a feature request.

     
    • Keith Marshall
      Keith Marshall
      2013-09-29

      Keith are we supposed to be able to attach more than one group to a package?

      Yes.

      If so, then it is only picking the first one ...

      I'm seeing the same. Must be another bug. I'll look into it.

       
    • Keith Marshall
      Keith Marshall
      2013-09-29

      Must be another bug. I'll look into it.

      A careless typo. Now fixed in my working sandbox.

      I also have a simple patch, to allow specification of group affiliation at the component level, in addition to package and package-collection levels, as currently supported. I'll push that too, and roll out an interim bug-fix release within the coming week; (unfortunately, I will not be able to correct the dependency constraint issue [#2064] within this time frame).

       

      Related

      Issues: #2064


      Last edit: Keith Marshall 2013-09-29
  • Keith Marshall
    Keith Marshall
    2013-10-03

    It actually turns out that extending the capability for group affiliation to the component package level isn't as difficult as I'd anticipated, so I've gone ahead and implemented it; affiliation can now be supported for package-collection, package, and component elements.

    Please don't ask me to extend it beyond these three; (it probably wouldn't be useful anyway). Any such request will definitely land on my "too hard" pile.

     
    • Earnie Boyd
      Earnie Boyd
      2013-10-03

      Thanks, I think this is good enough. The "too hard" pile is a nice PC way to state the obvious choice of another word. ;p

       
  • Keith Marshall
    Keith Marshall
    2013-10-05

    I've now pushed this to FRS, as mingw-get-0.6.2-beta-20131004-1. I've also updated the mingw32-gcc4.xml catalogue, to remove all but "bin" components from the "Basic Setup" package group.

    Any reason to keep this open?

     
  • Earnie Boyd
    Earnie Boyd
    2013-10-05

    • status: assigned --> closed
    • Resolution: none --> fixed
     
  • Earnie Boyd
    Earnie Boyd
    2013-10-05

    None that I see.

    I'll play around with the affiliations in my private sandboxes. I may throw out a branch for a review eventually if I like what I'm doing enough but none of my playing requires this to be open.