Hi, this is new release of tao (THE ACE ORB)
Created attachment 8769 [details] tao-1.3.1.ebuild (New package) This is the ebuild for new tao release
See also bug #15486
*** Bug 15486 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
foser, bouncing to you, just cause
one nasty build a few questions 1. do you think a great deal of users will benefit from this ebuild or in other words is it viable for us to put it in and maintain it (thats the tricky part). There are other, more widely used ORB's in portage, what would this one add ? 2. Why do you SLOT it with ever PV , is that a good idea. Is that what is suggested for this pack (doesn't look like that to me) ? Besides that, it only slots the so's by the looks of it, so there would be a lot files shared by different slotted version. That's not good. 3. Would it be possible to use portage functions like 'insinto' and 'doins' etc. instead of the cpio stuff ? 4. Ebuilds should imho be humanly readable, it lacks that mainly in the src_install part.
a few answer 1. In few words TAO is higly customizable by use of ACE and some of this customization are very important for some "mission critical" ORB applications. For this ebuild maintainig (and also other which I posted: combat,scotty, arts++ ...). So propose myself as "gentoo maintainer" (if you want me aboard I'm happy to collaborate), let me know what do you think about this. 2. Isn't suggested from pack (you look correct), for now it only use it for lib but could also be used for bin and include dir and link then by one which don't use PV. 3. could be. 4. That's true. I could try to use 'insinto' and 'doins' instand of cpio. Thank, baux
well if it isn't suggested i wouldnt want to overcomplicate things. Might give trouble with apps wanting to use it. Please create a tidied up version for review when you have the time . About 1. we're not 'hiring' on base of one our 2 packs. There's a new proposal considering maintainership in the making, let's see how that turns out.
waiting for updated ebuild
