| 1 |
On Wednesday 15 September 2004 22:10, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 12:48, Stuart Herbert wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I'll shortly be starting work on moving apache-related packages. |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > To make life easier for everyone - at the expense of a one-off bit of |
| 6 |
> > pain - I'm thinking of splitting the apache packages into TWO categories: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > - www-apache1 for apache1 packages |
| 9 |
> > - www-apache2 for apache2 packages |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > This will be a giant leap towards getting rid of the apache USE flag |
| 12 |
> > pain, and the associated noise / bugs that result from this. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> If there's a way to get portage to work better without this kind of |
| 15 |
> splitting, I'd much rather see that happen. Perhaps SLOTting by what |
| 16 |
> it's built for (apache-1/2)? I'm not real clear on the current |
| 17 |
> situation. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Splitting in this way really goes against the whole idea of portage |
| 20 |
> allowing us to integrate versioned packages into one using a combination |
| 21 |
> of USE flags, SLOTs and other tools. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
As far as I know it started with kernelheaders, but now more and more packages |
| 24 |
(want to) include a versionnummer in the name or give the package an other |
| 25 |
name (e.g. gentoo-sources v.s. gentoo-dev-sources). I think this can be |
| 26 |
solved by adding the possibillity to portage to check for required SLOT (and |
| 27 |
USE) in the (R)DEPEND-function. Do you think this is the right approach? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives