Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Andrej Kacian <ticho@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: What do you think about removing gtk-1.2 theme engines from tree?
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:05:31
Message-Id: 20070303140211.310dfb22@lhiker
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: What do you think about removing gtk-1.2 theme engines from tree? by Daniel Robbins
1 Dňa Fri, 2 Mar 2007 21:02:54 -0700
2 "Daniel Robbins" <drobbins.daniel@×××××.com> napísal:
3
4 > #3 It's ok to add themes to Portage if they are part of an official
5 > theme collection for a particular package. That way we have all the
6 > official themes - everything else would be up to the user to install.
7
8 What if there is some unofficial, user-contributed theme which is very,
9 very popular among users of relevant package. I think that makes it a
10 perfect candidate for being in portage[1], while not falling under your
11 three exceptions.
12
13 > Portage was really designed for executable software, not for arbitrary
14 > collections of binary data (themes, ezines, etc.) Not that
15 > collecting/indexing those things is bad, just not really what Portage
16 > is aimed at.
17
18 Realizing that I am replying to someone who was at the birth of
19 Portage, I disagree - Portage is a means of getting filesets installed
20 on a system in a controlled way. Choice of these filesets should be
21 purely at packagers' discretion. Of course, common sense has to be
22 applied.
23
24
25 1. The reason for this is the same as the one we hate certain
26 distributions, which force us to install nvidia drivers ourselves,
27 without package manager aid.
28
29 Kind regards,
30 --
31 Andrej Kacian <ticho at gentoo org>
32 Gentoo Linux developer - net-mail, antivirus, sound, x86

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature