| 1 |
On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 06:51 +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote: |
| 2 |
> maillog: 28/10/2004-17:35:05(-0400): Chris Gianelloni types |
| 3 |
> > On Thu, 2004-10-28 at 23:32 +0200, Maurice van der Pot wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Of course. That's not what I meant. I was talking about the X that could |
| 5 |
> > > be in KDE and in GNOME. |
| 6 |
> > > |
| 7 |
> > > I guess then that dependencies (like X, what I indicated with a prefix) |
| 8 |
> > > should not be part of the groups we define. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > I think this is the best solution. We don't have to add everything to a |
| 11 |
> > group. Just add the stuff that is specific to that group. For example, |
| 12 |
> > @GNOME would have gnome gtk gtk2 and arts, but not X. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I was not following the discussion closely, but why would @GNOME have |
| 15 |
> "gtk" and not "X"? What makes "gtk" less/more essential than X? How do |
| 16 |
> you decide which flag to leave out of a group, and which one not? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
X has nothing to do with Gnome, it is just a dependency, whereas Gnome |
| 19 |
is built on GTK. I guess the same would be said for QT and KDE. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The point is to only include things in a group that should be grouped, |
| 22 |
not that group and every possible other thing that could possibly be in |
| 23 |
that group. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Basically, things should only really be in one group. Doing that means |
| 26 |
we have a few more groups, but removes the problems of doing -@GROUP |
| 27 |
entirely. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 31 |
Release Engineering - Operational/QA Manager |
| 32 |
Games - Developer |
| 33 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives