| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Rémi Cardona wrote: |
| 5 |
> Zac Medico a écrit : |
| 6 |
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 7 |
>> Hash: SHA1 |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> Hi everyone, |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> Please consider a PROPERTIES=set value that allows an ebuild to |
| 12 |
>> indicate that it should behave like a package set when selected on |
| 13 |
>> the command line. This is behavior is somewhat difficult to describe |
| 14 |
>> in words but the following example should be sufficient to convey |
| 15 |
>> the general idea. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> As one of the maintainers of the gnome-base/gnome meta, I fail to see |
| 18 |
> the usefulness of such a change. We have yet to ask users to rebuild |
| 19 |
> "gnome" completely. Do you have any specific use cases (maybe coming |
| 20 |
> from the KDE herd, since you used the kde meta as an example) ? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> The one thing that bothers me about this is consistency: if, say, xfce |
| 23 |
> (let's change ;) ) decides to use PROPERTIES=set, users will have a |
| 24 |
> different experience with their ebuild than with the other metas we |
| 25 |
> currently ship. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> All in all, I'm not really against such a change, however I really fail |
| 28 |
> to see the win for everyone, end-users included. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Over the course of the discussion I've revised the idea so that it |
| 31 |
essentially represents a way to define a package set, without any |
| 32 |
changes to existing behavior. What will change is that we will have |
| 33 |
a new way to define package sets, based on ebuilds. |
| 34 |
- -- |
| 35 |
Thanks, |
| 36 |
Zac |
| 37 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 38 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkjgdqIACgkQ/ejvha5XGaP2qwCg8RgPOtwHrF/IkPm61irpeYQs |
| 41 |
918AoMGto/juGcI9og4Ct/dgkymIHz7V |
| 42 |
=3uaT |
| 43 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives