Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax

[Enrico Weigelt <weigelt@metux.de>]

* Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com> schrieb:

<snip>

> 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)

<snip>
 
> Personally, I hate that approach- ignoring any political/warring 
> idiocy, my main issue with debian is the choice to split upstream 
> packages into multiple sub packages.  Makes things a pain in the ass 
> to what you want/need and makes for fun lock-step dependencies between 
> the subpackages.

That's just because Debian has to do the upstream's work. 

The only charge I can make them here, is that they're working too 
silent instead of making heavy noise in the upstream so that they
actually learn what they're doing wrong. It's like washing a child
day by day and never showing him why it's wise to wash yourself
and how to do it.

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 switches the second package. 

They're in fact two different applications (just one shipped as
an subdir of another) and so should have two ebuilds.


cu
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
 	http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
 Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
	http://patches.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list