| 1 |
On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 07:37:41PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 11:54:57 -0600 |
| 3 |
> William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > > For a long-term view, 1) is the only way to go. Splitting packages |
| 6 |
> > > randomly between rootfs and /usr was never really correct, and we |
| 7 |
> > > especially shouldn't force users to junk their systems with |
| 8 |
> > > shattered packages and cheap glue to keep it all working. |
| 9 |
> > > |
| 10 |
> > > I'd suggest going the other way than I did with kmod. Temporary IUSE |
| 11 |
> > > like 'install-to-usr', disabled by default for now. Packages having |
| 12 |
> > > that IUSE should have correct USE-dependencies, and users who need |
| 13 |
> > > not to use that could just enable 'install-to-usr' globally (we'd |
| 14 |
> > > probably want to mask it first). |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > I'm not sure that a use flag is a good idea for this, because there |
| 17 |
> > will definitely be people who would turn it off, and with upstreams |
| 18 |
> > assuming that this is how things are installed, those who turn it off |
| 19 |
> > will have broken systems. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> But it will give some of us a chance to carefully test changes without |
| 22 |
> enforcing them on all users or leaving them to lag behind with |
| 23 |
> packages. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Stable or ~arch users wouldn't be affected, just those unmasking things |
| 26 |
in p.mask. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> Another, maybe even better solution is keeping modded packages in an |
| 29 |
> overlay. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Absolutely not. I don't see a reason to use an overlay for this; that's |
| 32 |
what p.mask is for. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> > What does everyone think? What am I leaving out? |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> I think you are missing the long, necessary transition period. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
I'm not sure I agree. I don't see why there has to be a long transition |
| 39 |
period if we coordinate everything correctly. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
William |
Archives