| 1 |
On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 06:52:22PM +0200, Hendrik Visage wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 01:45:28AM +0200, Karl Trygve Kalleberg wrote: |
| 3 |
> > One of the decisions to make is whether we should expose the underlying |
| 4 |
> > configuration mechanism for the package, say by having a process much like |
| 5 |
[snip] |
| 6 |
> > The current philosophy of portage (and consequently ebuild) has been KISS. |
| 7 |
> > The Gentoo developers have opted for the easiest route, |
| 8 |
> > implementation-wise. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Which do take away my reasons for needing to build |
| 11 |
> from source :( |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
There will always be packages that are too `weird' to be handled by any |
| 15 |
system we come up with. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
At a certain point, the extra complexity needed for this kind of stuff is |
| 18 |
not worth the time. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
/usr/local/(bin|sbin|share|doc|*) exists for a reason. If you have |
| 21 |
packages that require that level of customization, it is probably beyond |
| 22 |
what a package system should do. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
This all of course is my own personal opinion, |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Michael Tilstra tadpol@××××××.org |
| 28 |
Software is like sex; it's better when it's free. - Linus Torvalds |
Archives