| 1 |
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:23:06 -0700 Donnie Berkholz |
| 2 |
<spyderous@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
| Your suggestion of adding a few new virtuals is a good idea, but I |
| 4 |
| think the metabuilds for libraries, drivers, etc. can substitute for |
| 5 |
| it. It's not clear to me that there are many common configurations |
| 6 |
| that could be dealt with cleanly by a virtual in a better way, that |
| 7 |
| also retains a low level of complexity in the ebuilds. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Well... What I was mainly thinking (and assuming we don't have the new |
| 10 |
virtuals system by whenever this becomes relevant) is that a metapackage |
| 11 |
could represent, say, "the core x11 libraries as provided by xorg". This |
| 12 |
is all well and good, but there are other X implementations out there. |
| 13 |
It could well save a lot of work in the long term if deps were generally |
| 14 |
upon "the core x11 libraries" instead. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
| Frankly, the only reason the virtual will even exist after the 7.0 |
| 17 |
| release is so people have time to play catch-up. I don't want the |
| 18 |
| virtual to stay in use. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Is it your assumption that in the future xorg-x11 will be the only |
| 21 |
serious X server? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
*shrug* I realise we make similar assumptions about a lot of packages, |
| 24 |
but X is a) an at least vaguely standard protocol, b) heavily depended |
| 25 |
upon and c) implemented by more than one vendor. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives