| 1 |
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 23:20:15 +0000 (UTC) |
| 2 |
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > What proportion of people do you think know whether or not you need |
| 4 |
> > a die with econf or emake? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> This is a valid point as well. However, for a user simply concerned |
| 7 |
> with getting a functional ebuild so the package is tracked by the PM |
| 8 |
> as opposed to not (or manually tracking with package.provided), an |
| 9 |
> extra die or two, or even the lack thereof, and the docs and stuff, |
| 10 |
> don't matter as much as something easily understood and written with |
| 11 |
> little more than knowledge of bash and what's easily cribbed from a |
| 12 |
> few existing ebuilds used as samples. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
People shouldn't be writing ebuilds to do that at all. They should be |
| 15 |
using a package manager provided tool that lets them keep track of |
| 16 |
ebuild-less packages in a way that integrates properly with everything |
| 17 |
else. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> What's more worrying from the perspective of that person is that |
| 20 |
> while all these new vars are optional, if devs (with that |
| 21 |
> pre-knowledge) start using them as easier, pretty soon that person |
| 22 |
> above isn't going to have any easily accessible simple ebuilds to |
| 23 |
> crib from any more. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Sure they will. There'll still be a significant number of ebuilds that |
| 26 |
fall somwwhere between "easy enough to handle with the defaults" and |
| 27 |
"horrid complex mess". |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives