| 1 |
On Wed, 1 May 2013 16:22:47 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Wed, 01 May 2013 08:18:50 -0700 |
| 5 |
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > I know that this feature has been questioned by some, especially by |
| 7 |
> > people involved with Paludis (which doesn't implement preserve-libs). |
| 8 |
> > I think that the main compliant is that preserve-libs doesn't |
| 9 |
> > preserve any non-library dependencies (such as configuration files) |
| 10 |
> > that a library may depend on. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> ...and that it's utterly frickin' broken as a concept, and that |
| 13 |
> adopting it will slow down people switching to the proper solution to |
| 14 |
> the problem, which is slots. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Convince the developers to split packages into proper parts, then we |
| 17 |
can talk. Or even better, convince upstreams to split their packages. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Best regards, |
| 21 |
Michał Górny |
Archives