| 1 |
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:30:44 -0400 |
| 2 |
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> You actually came up with one I was not considering at first but provides a |
| 5 |
> direct technical benefit you cannot achieve with a USE flag. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > If anything, I'd imagine if that case arose, it would manifest itself more |
| 8 |
> > as: |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > icedtea-bin + USE=official |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Then how would you test that against non official? You cannot install the same |
| 13 |
> package twice at the same time with different USE flags. You can't even make |
| 14 |
> binaries easily of the same package with different USE flags. The previous |
| 15 |
> binary will get overwritten. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
You know you can make that argument about *every* useflag right? Being unable to |
| 18 |
test with one and the other co-installed? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The thing is, for the majority of our useflags there is no *Need* to. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
And more importantly, simply separating the logic into different package names |
| 23 |
does *not* automatically imply they can be installed side-by-side. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
They may be mutually exclusive. And plenty of things make this a problem |
| 26 |
that is intractable to solve. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> There you go, a case why it would make sense to have it be -bin and -ebin. |
| 29 |
> You can install both those at the same time and test. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Hence, my argument is not for "a possible use for it" in the "It could be handy |
| 32 |
for developers to do this" sense. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
The question is for our *users*: Who out there actually wants to do |
| 35 |
this sort of thing. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
What are the benefits. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
If Upstream and Gentoo both provide binary releases, but the Gentoo one |
| 40 |
sucks, we should just abolish the Gentoo one. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
If Upstream and Gentoo both provide binary releases, but upstreams |
| 43 |
sucks, then we should not ship the upstream version. |
Archives