Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] preference concerns over "gentoo-ization" of packages
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 02:49:42
Message-Id: 200309262249.49370.vapier@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] preference concerns over "gentoo-ization" of packages by Jason Wever
1 On Friday 26 September 2003 22:02, Jason Wever wrote:
2 > I've noticed that with some of our ebuilds, we have customized the
3 > software it installs beyond fixing broken functionality[1]. Some examples
4 > of this are; default themes for window managers, changes in config files
5 > (changing default parameters and/or chunking up the configs into multiple
6 > files), patches for non-standard functionality, etc[2].
7
8 i like it when config files have examples that are Gentoo specific added onto
9 them ... for example, i just finished adding an ebuild/eclass highlighting
10 bit of code to the nanorc file for nano ... but i have it commented out so
11 users can enable it if they wish ...
12
13 > Personally (and I'm guessing I'm not the only one), I'm not big on this
14 > behavior being the default when said packages install. One of the things
15 > I liked about my pre-Gentoo days when I built my packages from hand is
16 > that nothing was assumed for me, be it dependencies or how a program was
17 > run. Gentoo for a large part does this. However there are some ebuilds
18 > that do no do this. This can be frustrating not only from a
19 > configuration/maintenance point of view, but when trying to troubleshoot
20 > software issues (i.e. bug fixes). This is a reason we sometimes
21 > have problems dealing with vendors/authors of programs.
22
23 i agree for the most part but i also think that in some cases life aint this
24 great. going with the apache example, the work web-apps has been putting
25 into apache is justified. plus, it makes bug fixing/testing on our end a lot
26 easier.
27
28 -mike

Replies