| 1 |
On 6/20/20 7:04 PM, William Kenworthy wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 21/6/20 9:40 am, Daniel Frey wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On 6/20/20 6:21 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 7:06 PM Daniel Frey <djqfrey@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> Maybe when I have a moment I'll file a bug. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> Dan |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
> Thanks for filing the bug. One of my pet peeves is that the last few |
| 12 |
> years gentoo has been going down the path of spitting everything into |
| 13 |
> smaller and smaller pieces and scattering them around - its fine when |
| 14 |
> things work, but becomes a real pig to fault find and more often ends up |
| 15 |
> in a call for help. I would really like packages to be self contained |
| 16 |
> so its configuration and files are all in one place. I cant see any |
| 17 |
> advantage to having multiple ebuilds for a package instead of using a |
| 18 |
> support framework to deal with it other than exposing multiple |
| 19 |
> opportunities for things to go wrong and make it harder to fix. This not |
| 20 |
> an elegant design! |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> BillK |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
They were trying to solve the problem of having multiple packages |
| 28 |
dependent on a single user/group - mariadb/mysql comes to mind. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
By having these types of packages depend on something in the tree they |
| 31 |
can prevent the condition of having to remove the user/group when |
| 32 |
another package may still depend on it. It's kind of the opposite to the |
| 33 |
virtual/* packages I think, or maybe that's the beer talking. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Dan |
Archives