| 1 |
On Wed, 1 May 2013 17:28:02 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Wed, 1 May 2013 16:22:47 +0100 |
| 4 |
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Wed, 01 May 2013 08:18:50 -0700 |
| 6 |
> > Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > I know that this feature has been questioned by some, especially |
| 8 |
> > > by people involved with Paludis (which doesn't implement |
| 9 |
> > > preserve-libs). I think that the main compliant is that |
| 10 |
> > > preserve-libs doesn't preserve any non-library dependencies (such |
| 11 |
> > > as configuration files) that a library may depend on. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > ...and that it's utterly frickin' broken as a concept, and that |
| 14 |
> > adopting it will slow down people switching to the proper solution |
| 15 |
> > to the problem, which is slots. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Convince the developers to split packages into proper parts, then we |
| 18 |
> can talk. Or even better, convince upstreams to split their packages. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
It's necessary, and the way to convince developers is to stop providing |
| 21 |
a nasty hack as a not-really-working alternative. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives