| 1 |
On Saturday 24 December 2005 13:50, Peter wrote: |
| 2 |
> Would you please add the comments to the bug report? Or, may I copy them? |
| 3 |
> Please advise. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Feel free to do so. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> Also, I find it absolutely fascinating that the only people against this |
| 8 |
> concept are devs, and the only people for it are users. Remember that |
| 9 |
> users are your customers. Every effort should be made to keep them happy. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
The only valid issue I read about against a single nvidia-driver package was |
| 12 |
Diego's regarding FreeBSD. On the other hand having packages split or merged |
| 13 |
only because it can be done, doesn't make much sense. Regarding happiness, |
| 14 |
merry x-mas and best wishes to everyone, but I care about maintainability in |
| 15 |
the first place. You may be interested in GLEP 21¹, a very user friendly |
| 16 |
approach to easily group user defined packages. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> If you are against meta ebuilds, what is your opinion on KDE? Instead on 9 |
| 19 |
> (or so) packages, there are now over 250! Are 250 separate ebuilds better? |
| 20 |
> I cannot think of another distro that slices up KDE that way. Meta |
| 21 |
> ebuilds at least allow the user the ability to opt out of trying to |
| 22 |
> decide which ebuilds to emerge! |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
The split was due and having meta packages of some sort was necessary due to |
| 25 |
the amount of packages. The problems are present though: re-emerging and |
| 26 |
un-emerging meta packages doesn't affect their child packages. For reasons |
| 27 |
why the split ebuilds are an advantage please refer to The KDE Split Ebuilds |
| 28 |
HOWTO². The big downside of (the large number of) split packages is the |
| 29 |
affect on the code base of the stable Portage versions (and the current |
| 30 |
layout of the repository), which apparently is not created having scalability |
| 31 |
issues in mind. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> I always used to use CVS to update my KDE source tree, then compile only |
| 34 |
> the changed modules. I could have a whole updated KDE inside an hour. Now |
| 35 |
> that is performance! |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
But this has nothing to do with providing a large user base with a reasonable |
| 38 |
stable set of packages. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
> Here, with the unified nvidia, the intent was to REDUCE ebuilds and |
| 41 |
> simplify installation process. I thought the recommendation of a meta |
| 42 |
> nvidia ebuild is a worthy one worth consideration. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
As explained above, it isn't. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
> IMHO sometimes the desire to fine tune things and optimize things goes a |
| 47 |
> little over the edge. nVidia upstream combines all the products together |
| 48 |
> in their .run files. There is minimal time difference between having the |
| 49 |
> entire suite installed versus each one individually. And, from a user's |
| 50 |
> point of view, what could be simpler? |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> Anyway, I appreciate your feedback. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
If Diego could explain what the FreeBSD problem is and if he can resolve it, |
| 55 |
personally I don't see a valid reason against having a unified nvidia-driver |
| 56 |
package. I assume all the steps Portage is doing to install those packages |
| 57 |
(and uninstall previous versions) will take more time than having it bundled |
| 58 |
in a single ebuild, anyways. But raising the number of packages by a crappy |
| 59 |
meta ebuild (sorry, lazy users don't count) - no. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
Carsten |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0021.html |
| 66 |
[2] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/kde-split-ebuilds.xml#doc_chap3 |
Archives