Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> * Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>
>
>
>>> And what does this flag exactly say at this point ?
>>>
>>> Install only xlib ?
>>> Install xlib and some further ones ? Which ones ?
>>> Install all libs ?
>> Opening an ebuild and reading it must be hard.
>
> No
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: MD5
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> * Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>
>
>
>>> And what does this flag exactly say at this point ?
>>>
>>> Install only xlib ?
>>> Install xlib and some further ones ? Which ones ?
>>> Install all libs ?
>> Opening
On 8/8/06, Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think, modularized Xorg, as we have today, is far much better
than the old monolithic thing.
I think you are failing to realize that this isn't something that
Gentoo did on it's own. Upstream went to separate packages, and
Gentoo followed.
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>> Opening an ebuild and reading it must be hard.
>
> Not what I asked. I'm talking about what an user can expect to get.
> You don't expect every user to look trough each ebuilt, seriously ?
>
> And, in case of Xorg, the individual needs may very deeply.
> Some applications
* Thomas Cort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> $ grep minimal /usr/portage/profiles/use.desc
> minimal - Install a very minimal build (disables, for example, plugins,
> fonts, most drivers, non-critical features)
Very vague.
The user has to take a deep look into the ebuilt and the binary
package
* Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> > And what does this flag exactly say at this point ?
> >
> > Install only xlib ?
> > Install xlib and some further ones ? Which ones ?
> > Install all libs ?
>
> Opening an ebuild and reading it must be hard.
Not what I asked. I'm talking abo
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 16:50:18 +0200
Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Jan Kundrat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> > On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> > > For example: I've got several headless server systems where I now
> > > have to run some X applications. I only need xlib (an
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> * Jan Kundrat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>> On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>>> For example: I've got several headless server systems where I now
>>> have to run some X applications. I only need xlib (and its deps)
>>> on this system, not the whole X distribution
* Jan Kundrat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> > For example: I've got several headless server systems where I now
> > have to run some X applications. I only need xlib (and its deps)
> > on this system, not the whole X distribution. In a monolithic
> > wo
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> For example: I've got several headless server systems where I now
> have to run some X applications. I only need xlib (and its deps)
> on this system, not the whole X distribution. In a monolithic
> world, I would have to install *everything*, from serve
* Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> >foo/bar gui=gtk
> >blah/blubb gui=qt2
>
> bleh/enrico gui=qt4
s/qt4/ncurses/;
;-P
cu
--
-
Enrico Weigelt== metux IT service - ht
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> Maybe there could be an extra file, ie. package.use.alias
>
> foo/bar gui=gtk
> blah/blubbgui=qt2
> ...
>
> I'm not sure if this alias handling should be done by emerge,
> or better by some frontend (I learned that explicit downgrade
> warnings should b
* Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> W.Kenworthy wrote:
> >My personal opinion is that whilst things like modular X are good for
> >developers, they are not so good for users - particularly gentoo users.
>
> Definitely not true. The X.Org 7.1 release shared the vast majority of
> pack
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
foo/bar gui=gtk
blah/blubb gui=qt2
bleh/enrico gui=qt4
SCNR
--
Kind Regards,
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Developer
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
* Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> On Monday 07 August 2006 21:44, W.Kenworthy wrote:
> > My personal opinion is that whilst things like modular X are good for
> > developers, they are not so good for users - particularly gentoo users.
>
> we provide meta packages (X/kde/gnome/etc...)
* Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> > I just want to keep things simple. We're talking about introducing
> > new (additional) logic. This has to be maintained. And it doesn't
> > actually *solve* the problem which is this discussion was started.
>
> Removing the stuff from the ebuil
W.Kenworthy wrote:
My personal opinion is that whilst things like modular X are good for
developers, they are not so good for users - particularly gentoo users.
Definitely not true. The X.Org 7.1 release shared the vast majority of
packages with 7.0, so there were very few upgrades -- just a f
On Monday 07 August 2006 21:44, W.Kenworthy wrote:
> My personal opinion is that whilst things like modular X are good for
> developers, they are not so good for users - particularly gentoo users.
we provide meta packages (X/kde/gnome/etc...) for the split packages so users
can just emerge 1 pack
On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 15:48 +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> * Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
...
> Let's take a better example: nmap
> This package actually contains two completely different things:
> the portscanner tool and some gtk-based frontend. In fact the "gtk"
> useflag switche
On Monday 07 August 2006 16:18, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> I just want to keep things simple. We're talking about introducing
> new (additional) logic. This has to be maintained. And it doesn't
> actually *solve* the problem which is this discussion was started.
Removing the stuff from the ebuild and
On Monday 07 August 2006 22:09, Marius Mauch wrote:
>
> *sigh*, if you want to use a source based Debian (as the combination of
> all your posts seems to indicate) then do so, stop trying to convert
> Gentoo into that. Or create your own private fork.
> I start to get *really* annoyed by your overa
* Noack, Sebastian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Is a need to have dozens of lines in your /etc/portage/package.use
> a simple approach? Maybe it is, if for you, simplicity means only
> "less number of lines of code in the core of the application".
> But wasn't you the one who told me that q
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 15:26:44 +0200
Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Noack, Sebastian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>
>
>
> > Hey, come on. We're not Debian! Unnecessary and senseless
> > splitting of packages is against the philosophy of Gentoo.
>
> I don't think "we are not xyz" i
* Thomas Cort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 15:26:44 +0200
> Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The bad thing is that those things don't get neither into the upstrem
> > nor other distros.
>
> ^--- This should be a warning flag ---^
>
> If other distros are
Noack, Sebastian wrote:
>
> Is a need to have dozens of lines in your /etc/portage/package.use a
> simple approach? Maybe it is, if for you, simplicity means only "less
> number of lines of code in the core of the application". But wasn't you
> the one who told me that quantity isn't the same like
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 15:26:44 +0200
Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The bad thing is that those things don't get neither into the upstrem
> nor other distros.
^--- This should be a warning flag ---^
If other distros aren't doing it and upstream isn't doing it, then it
may no be t
> > > Well, I don't consider reducing complexity "frivolous" ;-o
> >
> > Which reduction for which complexity? Do you want to bring
everyone's
> > systems to a grinding halt, just because you can't understand the
> > "complexity" of useflags.
>
> I just want to keep things simple. We're talking ab
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> * Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>
>
>
>>> Well, I don't consider reducing complexity "frivolous" ;-o
>> Which reduction for which complexity? Do you want to bring everyone's
>> systems to a grinding halt, just because you can't understand the
>> "complexit
* Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> > Well, I don't consider reducing complexity "frivolous" ;-o
>
> Which reduction for which complexity? Do you want to bring everyone's
> systems to a grinding halt, just because you can't understand the
> "complexity" of useflags.
I just want
That's just because Debian has to do the upstream's work.
So if you are so in love with how Debian does everything, why don't you
just use Debian instead of Gentoo and stop wasting our time with your
silly rants on how we should do everything just like them.
-Steve
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org m
* Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Additionally... once you start down that path, the changes to
> pkgs become less then minor. Some are simple, some ain't.
If it's required to get them clean, then it shall be done.
(I'm actually doing thins @ oss-qm)
> Personally, I hate that
On Monday 07 August 2006 15:16, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> * Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>
>
>
> > > For example: mplayer
> > > It has it's gui-less player and an gtk-based frontend in one package.
> > > We should split this into two packages: mplayer and gmplayer.
> > > The chances to
* Noack, Sebastian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Hey, come on. We're not Debian! Unnecessary and senseless
> splitting of packages is against the philosophy of Gentoo.
I don't think "we are not xyz" is a good argumentation in
technical discussions.
At this point, Debian is actually doing go
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 09:54:18AM +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
> Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> >For example: mplayer
> >It has it's gui-less player and an gtk-based frontend in one package.
> >We should split this into two packages: mplayer and gmplayer.
> >The chances to get this done in the upstream *
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
For example: mplayer
It has it's gui-less player and an gtk-based frontend in one package.
We should split this into two packages: mplayer and gmplayer.
The chances to get this done in the upstream *before* some major
distro like gentoo does the split by its own are quite lo
> > Today the solution would be to enable the kde, qt, qt3, qt4, gtk,
etc.
> > -useflag. But this solution is crappy, because of some ebuilds for
>
> These flags are crap at all. It already is crap that certain packages
> contain backend and frontends for several GUIs (more precisely: based
> on s
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> For example: mplayer
> It has it's gui-less player and an gtk-based frontend in one package.
> We should split this into two packages: mplayer and gmplayer.
> The chances to get this done in the upstream *before* some major
> distro like gentoo does the split by its own are
Hi,
following szenario: Somebody installs a kde desktop and because of it is
an 80 years old woman ;), she wants to have graphical frontends where
ever possible.
Today the solution would be to enable the kde, qt, qt3, qt4, gtk, etc.
-useflag. But this solution is crappy, because of some ebuilds f
38 matches
Mail list logo
