Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:40:21
Message-Id: 43D6B9AB.2040203@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X by Alec Warner
1 Alec Warner wrote:
2 > Well IMHO, you can do what you want and if any arch team doesn't like it
3 > they can always pmask it themselves in their arch profile. I will say I
4 > disagree with putting it into ~arch in the current state, although I
5 > agree with the rationale, and it IS your package(s), just as it's
6 > essentially their arch.
7 >
8 > I guess the deal here is to not encourage this type of behavior;
9 > intentially breaking ~arch all the time and then making the arch teams
10 > "clean up" so to speak. I don't believe this to be the case here, I
11 > just don't want to see it become commonplace ;)
12
13 I'm certainly not trying to put any extra work on the arch teams; this
14 is conceptually arch-independent, and the only extra work should be on
15 the x11 team and on maintainers of unported apps.
16
17 But if there are archs that would rather not move to modular X, that's
18 their prerogative. The way I look at it is, sometimes change comes at a
19 price. I really hope they aren't any archs I use though, because I take
20 a certain amount of pride in making the best and newest X available.
21 When people remask it, it's like they're directly battling against the
22 whole reason I'm involved in Gentoo.
23
24 Thanks,
25 Donnei

Attachments

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

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X Jason Wever <weeve@g.o>