| 1 |
On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 13:50 -0300, Rafael Espíndola wrote: |
| 2 |
> I am using Gentoo to build some small systems. While things like the |
| 3 |
> minimal useflag is a joy, the monolithic nature of most gentoo |
| 4 |
> packages is a headache. |
| 5 |
It depends on your point of view. |
| 6 |
Having to install 142 -devel packages just to be able to compile $foo is |
| 7 |
quite frustrating - I prefer the Gentoo way. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> Kde has been spit and libstdc++ can be installed without gcc but there |
| 10 |
> are many other packages that don't have this feature. For example, |
| 11 |
> installing qt also installs qt designer. |
| 12 |
I don't know if there is a demand for this, but if you really need to |
| 13 |
shrink stuff, create your own ebuild overlay with "fixed" ebuilds ... |
| 14 |
> Has someone worked on changing ebuild so that it could create many |
| 15 |
> binary packages from one source? Something similar to debian's |
| 16 |
> dpkg-buildpackage. For example, it would be wonderful to be able to do |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> ebuild qt-something.ebuild split-package |
| 19 |
I haven't heard of anyone trying this, and as far as I can remember it has usually been shot down as a bad idea. |
| 20 |
> and have in /usr/portage/packages a package for qt-designer and a |
| 21 |
> package for the rest of the library. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Is this a bad idea or simply not the Gentoo way? |
| 24 |
Well ... it gets you all kinds of problems because if you split packages |
| 25 |
(e.g. X --> X + X-headers) and you want to compile something you'll pull |
| 26 |
in the second package anyway. So for most packages I think it's not |
| 27 |
really useful. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
wkr, |
| 30 |
Patrick |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move |
Archives