| 1 |
Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
> The very small minority of people it would affect isn't worth having the |
| 3 |
> majority of people getting confused and thinking they need to recompile |
| 4 |
> 4.3.99.14. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I see. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> It works as is anyway, so what's the point? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
The point was that if the version of the synaptics driver changes prior |
| 11 |
to the release of the xfree .15 ebuild, it would require those of us |
| 12 |
using it to recompile xfree at least one extra time. The alternate |
| 13 |
argument is that it would force those not using it to recompile X and |
| 14 |
yes, that is obviously a much larger number. Also, it seemed redundant |
| 15 |
to have a synaptics ebuild that is just sitting there and have the xfree |
| 16 |
ebuild doing it "by hand." It makes maintaining it difficult by having |
| 17 |
it in two places. There is also the fact that xfree 4.3.99.* is still |
| 18 |
masked so I didn't think releasing a new version of the ebuild would be |
| 19 |
a big deal as it is uber-unstable. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
It's rather subjective, and as someone who has to use the combination in |
| 22 |
question (xfree 4.3.99.x, synaptics, and the 2.6 kernel series (due to |
| 23 |
an IGP320M chipset)), it would be easier to have the xfree ebuild use |
| 24 |
the synaptics ebuild rather than pull it in itself. It's not that big of |
| 25 |
a deal, really. I can do it and just use it in PORTAGE_OVERLAY if it's |
| 26 |
not something that gentoo is interested in. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Eric Sammer |
| 30 |
eric@××××××××××××.com |
| 31 |
http://www.ineoconcepts.com |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives