Re: [gentoo-python] Thoughts on PIL and Pillow

[yac <yac@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 998 bytes --]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 19:58:40 +0200
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 28 May 2013 13:45:22 -0400
> Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > The question I have: Is it better to have Pillow as a separate
> > package and set up a virtual, or should Pillow just be added as a
> > version bump of dev-python/imaging?
> > 
> > The portage tree currently has both dev-python/imaging-2.0.0
> > (hard-masked), and dev-python/pillow-2.0.0. My intent was to
> > eliminate dev-python/pillow with a pkg move, but upon further
> > consideration I would like to gather some more opinions on the
> > matter.
> 
> Moving forks onto original packages sounds much like Arfrever was
> doing in the past. That's why we have dev-python/setuptools which is
> not setuptools, doesn't it?
> 
> Merging two unmerged projects into a single ebuild is a mess. Just
> keep them separate, make a virtual for it. When packages work with
> pillow, switch them to the virtual.

+1

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]