| 1 |
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Given |
| 4 |
> that the only user response so far is (effectively) that I'm making a |
| 5 |
> mountain out of a molehill... |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I just post to let you know that you are not alone :) |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
You also have friends in the forum sharing your opinion |
| 10 |
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-963504-highlight-.html |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Your effort is really appreciated. |
| 13 |
However, I guess that most people are like me and just gave up: |
| 14 |
If it really means to make new upstream patches and actually |
| 15 |
fight against upstream policy, it is not worth the hassle. |
| 16 |
The change of the Gentoo policy caused me to remove KDE, |
| 17 |
and I guess most users who do not want the dependencies |
| 18 |
have done (or will do) the same. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Independently on the overlay, I think your framework is |
| 21 |
very interesting: Does your framework manage the ebuilds |
| 22 |
in some overlay, or is it actually running tranparently |
| 23 |
during emerge (probably with a patched version of portage), |
| 24 |
allowing e.g. to change metadata without maintaining the |
| 25 |
ebuild in a separate local overlay? |
| 26 |
(I guess that it is the former, but your choice of the path |
| 27 |
/etc/portage/... suggests the latter) |
Archives