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 |