| 1 |
On 13 April 2013 22:30, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 11:27:24PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 14:43:14 -0500 |
| 4 |
>> William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> > this eclass is an alternative to systemd.eclass, and maintains |
| 7 |
>> > full compatibility with it; however, it expands it so that it can query |
| 8 |
>> > pkgconfig for the directory paths. It returns the same default paths as |
| 9 |
>> > systemd.eclass if there is an error with pkgconfig. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> Alternative? So now developers decide whether they want support systemd |
| 12 |
>> A or systemd B? And we fork packages so that users can have matching |
| 13 |
>> set of packages? |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> If you listened, you would know that the only reason I didn't apply |
| 16 |
>> your patches to the eclass was that nothing used them. If you really |
| 17 |
>> want to commit your quasi-fork, I will update the eclass. You |
| 18 |
>> don't really have to play silly games like this. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Ok, that is the better aproach anyway, go ahead and update the eclass. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Thanks much. :-) |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> William |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Am I the only one wondering why you didn't discuss this before you |
| 28 |
submit a new eclass for review? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Regards, |
| 32 |
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 33 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang |
Archives