| 1 |
Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 17:45 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 4 |
>> the compromise is simple: catalyst runs --config at the end of stage3 for |
| 5 |
>> appropriate packages, but as to what those things actually do is left in |
| 6 |
>> the ebuilds. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I've already stated my preference for not doing *anything* outside of |
| 9 |
> merging packages in the stages. |
| 10 |
With respect, this is a little confusing. I didn't get past the learning |
| 11 |
curve for catalyst, but it's clearly not the same as simply merging |
| 12 |
packages, or you wouldn't need a special tool. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> Were this >stage3, I wouldn't care. |
| 15 |
> Anyway, I'd much rather leave everything as it is now than add the |
| 16 |
> emerge --config stuff. You're free to add it to the ebuilds, of course, |
| 17 |
> which would satisfy the people that want it, but I would prefer not add |
| 18 |
> it to the stages, even if it is documented in the Handbook, as it isn't |
| 19 |
> required. Basically, I'd rather we either throw it into the earlier |
| 20 |
> stages, or not do it at all. You've given good reason on why, while |
| 21 |
> technically feasible since we're only caring about bash at this time, it |
| 22 |
> is still a bad idea as it opens us up to yet another slippery slope. I |
| 23 |
> completely see your point, which is why I'm taking the stance that |
| 24 |
> things are best left as they are now. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
It seemed to me that a clean, *simple* solution which would work for any |
| 27 |
future packages that might also need this functionality was proposed. Why |
| 28 |
not just use it? It's only one command, and the standardisation would mean |
| 29 |
users could rely on the mechanism for system recovery. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Or am I missing some deeper technical implication? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives