From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GA6d3-00002l-HE for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 07 Aug 2006 15:02:54 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with SMTP id k77F1q6q030562; Mon, 7 Aug 2006 15:01:52 GMT Received: from egr.msu.edu (jeeves.egr.msu.edu [35.9.37.127]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k77ExXfY013595 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2006 14:59:34 GMT Received: from [35.9.132.199] (feilongpc.dhcp.egr.msu.edu [35.9.132.199]) (authenticated bits=0) by egr.msu.edu (8.13.7/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k77ExXkD014486 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2006 10:59:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <44D71CC9.1030300@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 10:58:17 +0000 From: Alec Warner Organization: Gentoo User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060629) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax References: <7B97065F451A23458ED0C63B4CA5A2EA1D2911@SRV-EXCHANGE.AUTOonline.local> <44D242A6.8030705@gentoo.org> <20060807131642.GF25236@nibiru.local> <200608071540.32819.pauldv@gentoo.org> <20060807141821.GI25236@nibiru.local> In-Reply-To: <20060807141821.GI25236@nibiru.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: f2ee033d-dfde-43d0-bf91-0d0c885f20e6 X-Archives-Hash: 7951a5dba5a76ad93261d5beff86e67e Enrico Weigelt wrote: > * Paul de Vrieze 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 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. > > Rember: we started with the thesis, "grandma wants graphical > frontends whereever possible". This is in fact not an technical > issue, instead a matter of personal taste, or lets say, an individual > system configuration. Grandma wants to click, okay, so she should > use graphical applications. She's not interested what sits behind, > she just wants to have a buch of applications. And she also doesn't > wann have anything to do with emerge and useflags. She just wants > to have a choice between a bunch of end-user applications. > That's the job of an Grandma-(sub-)distro. > Bad example, as Gentoo generally requires knowledge of the system and the command line interface; unless you think grandma can update her toolchain properly with no issues. I don't think anyone at this point would hand Gentoo to grandma; and I don't think anyone has that goal. Mostly we just want an easy to maintain system. See that word, maintain; generally means the maintainer knows what they are doing. > Okay, let's say we want to intruduce an meta-useflag for "GUI" > (although having additional GUIs in the same package as the > backend isn't what I consider clean design). If there's just *one* > than it's easy - just an alias. But what's if we have more ? > Who makes the decision, which one to take ? Based on what rules ? > The packages maintainer for Gentoo typically makes the choice on how something is deployed in Gentoo. >> Useflags are one of the distinguishing features of gentoo. > > Yes. For optional features. Additional programs aren't features of > some other program, but additional programs. I would gather for many packages that a gui is a optional feature. Also this is not a hard and fast rule (and was never meant to be). > > > >> It is also against the gentoo philosophy of offering software the >> way upstream provides it. > > Ah, and this philosophy is more important than quality and > maintainability ? This *philosophy* is a core value of gentoo. That would be like saying we should build binary packages for everything because it's easier to maintain and gives us a higher quality distribution. Pardon my french, but fuck that. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list