| 1 |
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 19:37:09 +0000 (UTC) |
| 2 |
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> That could be a lot of package-move churn. It arguably might make |
| 5 |
> sense to keep the current names "for legacy reasons". (Or not. Just |
| 6 |
> speculating here.) |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
For sure it would require touching lots of packages. Its not really a |
| 9 |
minor thing, thus bring it up for discussion. Likely need to take into |
| 10 |
consideration sooner than later. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
For any new packages, likely best they go into proper new categories |
| 13 |
then continuing on the legacy. Then it becomes a matter of what to do |
| 14 |
for others. Lots of packages moves would not be fun. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Though something similar was done recently with vpn packages. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> FWIW, there was some related discussion awhile back on USE=X, |
| 19 |
> proposing USE=gui instead, but I don't know what became of it. |
| 20 |
> Perhaps gui-* category names if that's actually moving forward, in |
| 21 |
> ordered to maintain a bit of consistency and for lack of a better |
| 22 |
> idea? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I think that is different as you do need X now to differentiate between |
| 25 |
say X and Wayland. If it was just generic stuff then GUI would make |
| 26 |
sense. Though usually other stuff handles that, gtk, qt, etc USE flag. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
Archives