| 1 |
maillog: 28/10/2004-18:05:16(-0400): Chris Gianelloni types |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 06:51 +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I was not following the discussion closely, but why would @GNOME have |
| 4 |
> > "gtk" and not "X"? What makes "gtk" less/more essential than X? How do |
| 5 |
> > you decide which flag to leave out of a group, and which one not? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> X has nothing to do with Gnome, it is just a dependency, whereas Gnome |
| 8 |
> is built on GTK. I guess the same would be said for QT and KDE. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> The point is to only include things in a group that should be grouped, |
| 11 |
> not that group and every possible other thing that could possibly be in |
| 12 |
> that group. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Basically, things should only really be in one group. Doing that means |
| 15 |
> we have a few more groups, but removes the problems of doing -@GROUP |
| 16 |
> entirely. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
It still doesn't make sense to me. GTK is just as much a dependency of |
| 19 |
Gnome, as much X is a dependency of GTK (or Gnome for that matter). |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Anyway, the way I imagine things is that people would use these groups |
| 22 |
to be able to quickly specify their use flags from scratch. And the use |
| 23 |
I imagine being the most obvious is: |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
USE="-* @GNOME". |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
That, however, is not really gonna do it, if X is not in @GNOME. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
-* Georgi Georgiev -* Established technology tends to persist in -* |
| 31 |
*- chutz@×××.net *- the face of new technology. -- G. Blaauw, *- |
| 32 |
-* +81(90)6266-1163 -* one of the designers of System 360 -* |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives