| 1 |
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:14:40 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:03:28 +0100 |
| 4 |
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Have you seen how Exherbo solved the same problem? exheres-0 has |
| 6 |
> > 'suggested' and 'recommended' dependencies, which are variations on |
| 7 |
> > post dependencies. Suggested dependencies are displayed (along with |
| 8 |
> > a description explaining what they do for the packages suggesting |
| 9 |
> > them) but not taken by default, and recommended dependencies are |
| 10 |
> > taken (but shown as just being recommended) unless the user says |
| 11 |
> > not to. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Seems to me like just another configuration file for user to cope |
| 14 |
> with. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
You obviously didn't pay attention, since the configuration file is the |
| 17 |
least relevant bit of the whole thing. If you really think that too |
| 18 |
many configuration files is a bigger problem than making reinstalls |
| 19 |
suddenly not reinstall stuff, though, then tracking not-taken |
| 20 |
suggestions is trivial. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Having real world experience with all of this, I can assure you that |
| 23 |
configuration files are not what cause user difficulties. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> We can achieve the same results with the special USE Peter suggested |
| 26 |
> and USE defaults, using the same configuration mechanism as usual. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
You *could*, yes. But then that's yet another perversion on what USE |
| 29 |
flags are, and it means that suddenly reinstalling isn't reinstalling |
| 30 |
any more (what if a user wants to reinstall something, but that it |
| 31 |
doesn't get reinstalled because the package mangler thinks that you're |
| 32 |
just altering flags?). Do you really want a user to have to 'reinstall' |
| 33 |
something twice to reinstall it? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives