| 1 |
On Tue, 28 May 2013 13:45:22 -0400 |
| 2 |
Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> The question I have: Is it better to have Pillow as a separate package |
| 5 |
> and set up a virtual, or should Pillow just be added as a version bump |
| 6 |
> of dev-python/imaging? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> The portage tree currently has both dev-python/imaging-2.0.0 |
| 9 |
> (hard-masked), and dev-python/pillow-2.0.0. My intent was to eliminate |
| 10 |
> dev-python/pillow with a pkg move, but upon further consideration I |
| 11 |
> would like to gather some more opinions on the matter. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Moving forks onto original packages sounds much like Arfrever was doing |
| 14 |
in the past. That's why we have dev-python/setuptools which is not |
| 15 |
setuptools, doesn't it? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Merging two unmerged projects into a single ebuild is a mess. Just keep |
| 18 |
them separate, make a virtual for it. When packages work with pillow, |
| 19 |
switch them to the virtual. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
And if we decide to drop dev-python/imaging in the future, we'll just |
| 22 |
change virtual deps to pillow. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Best regards, |
| 26 |
Michał Górny |
Archives