| 1 |
* Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> schrieb: |
| 2 |
> W.Kenworthy wrote: |
| 3 |
> >My personal opinion is that whilst things like modular X are good for |
| 4 |
> >developers, they are not so good for users - particularly gentoo users. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Definitely not true. The X.Org 7.1 release shared the vast majority of |
| 7 |
> packages with 7.0, so there were very few upgrades -- just a few drivers |
| 8 |
> and the server. In the monolithic world, you would've needed to rebuild |
| 9 |
> the whole thing for that. Installing it is a one-time cost, upgrading |
| 10 |
> goes on forever. And the security updates that already occurred proved |
| 11 |
> modularization well worth the effort -- often, just a single package |
| 12 |
> (the server) needed an update. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
ACK. It's not only an big improvement to maintenability, also |
| 15 |
stops wasting resources. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
For example: I've got several headless server systems where I now |
| 18 |
have to run some X applications. I only need xlib (and its deps) |
| 19 |
on this system, not the whole X distribution. In a monolithic |
| 20 |
world, I would have to install *everything*, from server to tools, |
| 21 |
just for getting some libs. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
The modularization is an *huge* improvement. Installations get |
| 24 |
smaller and faster and development is much easier. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
cu |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 30 |
Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ |
| 31 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 32 |
Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce: |
| 33 |
http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce |
| 34 |
Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions: |
| 35 |
http://patches.metux.de/ |
| 36 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives