| 1 |
On Tue, 28 May 2013 19:58:40 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Tue, 28 May 2013 13:45:22 -0400 |
| 5 |
> Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > The question I have: Is it better to have Pillow as a separate |
| 8 |
> > package and set up a virtual, or should Pillow just be added as a |
| 9 |
> > version bump of dev-python/imaging? |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > The portage tree currently has both dev-python/imaging-2.0.0 |
| 12 |
> > (hard-masked), and dev-python/pillow-2.0.0. My intent was to |
| 13 |
> > eliminate dev-python/pillow with a pkg move, but upon further |
| 14 |
> > consideration I would like to gather some more opinions on the |
| 15 |
> > matter. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Moving forks onto original packages sounds much like Arfrever was |
| 18 |
> doing in the past. That's why we have dev-python/setuptools which is |
| 19 |
> not setuptools, doesn't it? |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Merging two unmerged projects into a single ebuild is a mess. Just |
| 22 |
> keep them separate, make a virtual for it. When packages work with |
| 23 |
> pillow, switch them to the virtual. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
+1 |
Archives