| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
| Well... What I was mainly thinking (and assuming we don't have the new |
| 6 |
| virtuals system by whenever this becomes relevant) is that a metapackage |
| 7 |
| could represent, say, "the core x11 libraries as provided by xorg". This |
| 8 |
| is all well and good, but there are other X implementations out there. |
| 9 |
| It could well save a lot of work in the long term if deps were generally |
| 10 |
| upon "the core x11 libraries" instead. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
But see, that's the thing; no packages should just generally say "Give |
| 13 |
me the X libraries" other than temporarily. They should be specifically |
| 14 |
demanding upon the exact libraries they require. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
| Is it your assumption that in the future xorg-x11 will be the only |
| 17 |
| serious X server? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
My assumption is that if there's another fork, it will be easier to deal |
| 20 |
with || ( xorg-libfoo forkx-libfoo ) than a virtual for every single |
| 21 |
package X provides. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
| *shrug* I realise we make similar assumptions about a lot of packages, |
| 24 |
| but X is a) an at least vaguely standard protocol, b) heavily depended |
| 25 |
| upon and c) implemented by more than one vendor. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Indeed. But what I've begun to discover is that virtuals aren't always |
| 28 |
the best solution when there is more than one provider, much less when |
| 29 |
that's a largely hypothetical question. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Thanks, |
| 32 |
Donnie |
| 33 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 34 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) |
| 35 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
iD8DBQFC7pn8XVaO67S1rtsRApYwAJ4wTzdCv2E8Lf9Yu5rjEVC+tZIGdACg6cOT |
| 38 |
yNxBHXc4DpBh3e8r76pBFrc= |
| 39 |
=vWPO |
| 40 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives