| 1 |
On 05/01/2013 08:35 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 1 May 2013 17:28:02 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On Wed, 1 May 2013 16:22:47 +0100 |
| 5 |
>> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> On Wed, 01 May 2013 08:18:50 -0700 |
| 7 |
>>> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
>>>> I know that this feature has been questioned by some, especially |
| 9 |
>>>> by people involved with Paludis (which doesn't implement |
| 10 |
>>>> preserve-libs). I think that the main compliant is that |
| 11 |
>>>> preserve-libs doesn't preserve any non-library dependencies (such |
| 12 |
>>>> as configuration files) that a library may depend on. |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>>> ...and that it's utterly frickin' broken as a concept, and that |
| 15 |
>>> adopting it will slow down people switching to the proper solution |
| 16 |
>>> to the problem, which is slots. |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> Convince the developers to split packages into proper parts, then we |
| 19 |
>> can talk. Or even better, convince upstreams to split their packages. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> It's necessary, and the way to convince developers is to stop providing |
| 22 |
> a nasty hack as a not-really-working alternative. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
As downstream packagers, do we or can we really expect to have that much |
| 25 |
influence of upstream developers? If the big binary distros are willing |
| 26 |
to package these things without complaints, then how likely is it that |
| 27 |
upstream developers will change their ways? |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Thanks, |
| 30 |
Zac |
Archives