1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
3 |
|
4 |
Rémi Cardona wrote: |
5 |
> Zac Medico a écrit : |
6 |
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
7 |
>> Hash: SHA1 |
8 |
>> |
9 |
>> Hi everyone, |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> Please consider a PROPERTIES=set value that allows an ebuild to |
12 |
>> indicate that it should behave like a package set when selected on |
13 |
>> the command line. This is behavior is somewhat difficult to describe |
14 |
>> in words but the following example should be sufficient to convey |
15 |
>> the general idea. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> As one of the maintainers of the gnome-base/gnome meta, I fail to see |
18 |
> the usefulness of such a change. We have yet to ask users to rebuild |
19 |
> "gnome" completely. Do you have any specific use cases (maybe coming |
20 |
> from the KDE herd, since you used the kde meta as an example) ? |
21 |
> |
22 |
> The one thing that bothers me about this is consistency: if, say, xfce |
23 |
> (let's change ;) ) decides to use PROPERTIES=set, users will have a |
24 |
> different experience with their ebuild than with the other metas we |
25 |
> currently ship. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> All in all, I'm not really against such a change, however I really fail |
28 |
> to see the win for everyone, end-users included. |
29 |
|
30 |
Over the course of the discussion I've revised the idea so that it |
31 |
essentially represents a way to define a package set, without any |
32 |
changes to existing behavior. What will change is that we will have |
33 |
a new way to define package sets, based on ebuilds. |
34 |
- -- |
35 |
Thanks, |
36 |
Zac |
37 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
38 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
39 |
|
40 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkjgdqIACgkQ/ejvha5XGaP2qwCg8RgPOtwHrF/IkPm61irpeYQs |
41 |
918AoMGto/juGcI9og4Ct/dgkymIHz7V |
42 |
=3uaT |
43 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |