| 1 |
Hi Alec, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 27.01.2018 22:58, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 5 |
> > I noticed that we have 7 packages on Fedora wallpapers with names that |
| 6 |
> > only explain themselves to Fedora insiders: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> So traditionally we follow upstream package naming. If we aim to |
| 9 |
> deviate, I'd prefer we have strong reasons for it. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
good point. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> > I was thinking that we could merge these packages into a new package |
| 15 |
> > "x11-themes/fedora-backgrounds" or so with slots 11 to 16 so that people |
| 16 |
> > can still install them in parallel, get slot updates automatically, |
| 17 |
> > adding more recent ones does not add more packages, and the package name |
| 18 |
> > explains itself. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Why not just make x11-themes/fedora-backgrounds, a metapackage that |
| 21 |
> includes all of the packages? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
With one file and use flags for each version or with one ebuild file per |
| 24 |
slot? Fedora 21 was the last release with a release name so if we |
| 25 |
package 22+ later, their ebuilds would be non-meta in nature. I'm not |
| 26 |
sure how to blend that into the use-flag version (yet for a meta package |
| 27 |
all these files seem overkill too). Do you have some third option in mind? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Best |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Sebastian |
Archives