| 1 |
On Friday 15 June 2007, Alexander Skwar wrote: |
| 2 |
> I mean, what's the advantage of the kde*-meta packages over the kde |
| 3 |
> package, when the kde*-meta require just as much "junk", as the |
| 4 |
> kde package does? Hm, really, what's the use of the kde*-meta package |
| 5 |
> anyway? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
The -meta packages are a good idea. With the old style kde or kdepim etc |
| 8 |
packages, you got everything whether you liked it or not. Putting a USE |
| 9 |
flag on such an ebuild to build all of kdepim except kppp would be ... |
| 10 |
tricky at best. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
The -meta packages split everything in kde up on an app level, but there |
| 13 |
is the disadvantage that you now have 300 ebuilds to choose from and |
| 14 |
get to list *all* the ones you want. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Perhaps the best route (maybe a good feature request?) is to put USE |
| 17 |
flags in the -meta ebuilds. Then you get the full configurability of |
| 18 |
what -meta gives, plus an easy way to omit stuff without having to list |
| 19 |
>100 desired packages |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
alan |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Optimists say the glass is half full, |
| 27 |
Pessimists say the glass is half empty, |
| 28 |
Developers say wtf is the glass twice as big as it needs to be? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 31 |
alan at linuxholdings dot co dot za |
| 32 |
+27 82, double three seven, one nine three five |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives