| 1 |
* Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek.chauhan@×××××.com> schrieb: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > It's bad, just because Debian does it ?! |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Yes, because their technical design is different from Gentoo's. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Still too religious ;-P |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Would be different if you'd said "we don't need to split since we |
| 10 |
have useflags" or "we want to stay as near to upstream as possible" |
| 11 |
instead of "we're not debian". Being different, just to be |
| 12 |
different is really too pubertal for me ;-o |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> Debian/$binary_distro have to split up packages because they have no |
| 15 |
> other way of mapping configure flags to what the user wants to |
| 16 |
> install. Gentoo does, and they're called USE flags. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Right, binary distros have a much bigger presure on that, but this |
| 19 |
doesn't mean that splitting is always bad. |
| 20 |
Think of all these useflag-deps, which often wouldn't be necessary |
| 21 |
if the packages would be split in finer granularity. |
| 22 |
Of course, this is mostly the upstream's fault. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
cu |
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 27 |
Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ |
| 28 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 29 |
Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce: |
| 30 |
http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce |
| 31 |
Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions: |
| 32 |
http://patches.metux.de/ |
| 33 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives