| 1 |
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:17:30 -0400 Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
| > Uh, as far as I recall, you've yet to come up with any technical |
| 3 |
| > explanation other than "it breaks one of my pet projects"... The |
| 4 |
| > gains of consistency and manageability far outweigh the minor |
| 5 |
| > inconvenience. |
| 6 |
| |
| 7 |
| There is no consistency for end users when stuff keeps getting |
| 8 |
| shuffled around. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Uh, end users get consistent and sensible categorising when stuff is |
| 11 |
properly categorised. It's not exactly consistent to have some foo |
| 12 |
packages in app-misc and some in app-foo now, is it? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
| Portage still can't get it right. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Specifics? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
| 'fixpackages' does not correct the installed vdb content so the |
| 19 |
| problems extend past any of my pet projects. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
A few people having to rebuild a few binary packages now and again (and |
| 22 |
incidentally, it'd take you even less time to fix fixpackages) is far |
| 23 |
less of an issue than keeping an already way too huge tree slightly |
| 24 |
more manageable. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 28 |
Mail : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives