1 |
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:27:30PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> * Don't mess with kdebuild until you're sure that no-one has any |
3 |
> kdebuild packages installed. |
4 |
|
5 |
I'm not looking to start a fight, and frankly after a year or so I've |
6 |
learned to just subconsciously/automatically ignore kdebuild, but why |
7 |
exactly must this be in pms? |
8 |
|
9 |
It's experimental w/ low user acceptance, and was fundamentally |
10 |
outside the gentoo mainstream. If long term maintenance of it is |
11 |
desired for anyone who hasn't yet punted those ebuilds from their |
12 |
vdb, maintain it in a branch rather then the effective head (don't |
13 |
make the mainline suffer maintenance for something that was outside |
14 |
mainline). |
15 |
|
16 |
My two cents mind you- at this point, flipping through the source, the |
17 |
kdebuild bits disrupt the flow from my view (and more importantly the |
18 |
resultant read of it due to folks trying to structure the text to be |
19 |
agnostic to non-kdebuild), more importantly doing so w/ minimal gain |
20 |
for the mainstream. |
21 |
|
22 |
Either way, take it as a +1 for punting it from mainstream and making |
23 |
the kdebuild specific folk maintain their own branch rather then |
24 |
general eapi (gentoo specific) having to maintain it. Branching of |
25 |
this sort is presumably one of the reasons pms uses a dvcs after all. |
26 |
|
27 |
And to head off one angle of argument, I fully expect if I ever get |
28 |
ambitious enough to derive an eapi extension that I'll have to |
29 |
maintain it outside of pms mainline- being nonstandard, I'd expect |
30 |
nothing less (hence the +1 for punting kdebuild). |
31 |
|
32 |
My two cents either way, and well aware it's probably not something |
33 |
everyone wants to hear. |
34 |
|
35 |
Not a hard +1 since I've zero interest in a fight also, but a +1 |
36 |
either way. |
37 |
|
38 |
Sorry, but tis my views. |
39 |
~harring |