| 1 |
On 03/08/14 13:11, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Aug 2014, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 03/08/14 11:55, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Do I get this right, you want the eselect module move files |
| 5 |
>>> installed by a package to another directory, effectively making |
| 6 |
>>> them orphans? |
| 7 |
>> Of course it would require a pkg_postrm() phase that cleans up |
| 8 |
>> possible orphans |
| 9 |
> Still, this would be very bad design. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I agree. I'm trying to distance myself from the whole issue, still gets |
| 12 |
my blood pressure raising how some people behaved... so don't |
| 13 |
expect too specific answers from me regarding the implementation |
| 14 |
specifics. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
>> But mgorny pointed out another solution in this thread, "Wouldn't it |
| 18 |
>> be better to generate exclude commands in bashrc?" |
| 19 |
>> And the answer to that would be "yes, of course" |
| 20 |
> Can you remind me what was wrong with the current method, namely using |
| 21 |
> symlinks? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Other than upstream packages checking for existance of directory |
| 24 |
/usr/share/bash-completion/completions |
| 25 |
and detemining if they will install the completion files or not, not |
| 26 |
much else |
| 27 |
It's just tedious work to need to hack every upstream package to the |
| 28 |
Gentoo quirks, sort of love the |
| 29 |
"stick close to upstream as possible" mantra |
| 30 |
We could keep the old symlink method and just start using |
| 31 |
/usr/share/bash-completion/completions as |
| 32 |
a compromise, if that's the conclusion people draw, I have nothing |
| 33 |
against that |
| 34 |
As in, the main point was to start using the upstream directories, to be |
| 35 |
compatible with reverse dependencies |
| 36 |
out-of-box |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
- Samuli |
Archives