| 1 |
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 02:23:06PM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
> Your suggestion of adding a few new virtuals is a good idea, but I think |
| 3 |
> the metabuilds for libraries, drivers, etc. can substitute for it. It's |
| 4 |
> not clear to me that there are many common configurations that could be |
| 5 |
> dealt with cleanly by a virtual in a better way, that also retains a low |
| 6 |
> level of complexity in the ebuilds. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Regardless of whether it's gonna be virtuals or metabuilds, aren't we |
| 9 |
going to have problems with mixed X installs (different parts from |
| 10 |
different implementations)? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Will we be able to make sure if the user emerges some app that requires |
| 13 |
library A from an X implementation and later emerges an application that |
| 14 |
requires library B, that A and B are taken from the same implementation? |
| 15 |
If not, what would happen if the user later emerged the top-level xorg |
| 16 |
ebuild? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Maurice. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Maurice van der Pot |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Gentoo Linux Developer griffon26@g.o http://www.gentoo.org |
| 24 |
Creator of BiteMe! griffon26@××××××××.com http://www.kfk4ever.com |
Archives