From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C67B1381F3 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 21:20:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D5269E0A86; Tue, 28 May 2013 21:20:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 635BDE0A86 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 21:20:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (ip-213-220-199-59.net.upcbroadband.cz [213.220.199.59]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 845FF33E070 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 21:20:01 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 23:19:59 +0200 From: yac To: gentoo-python@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-python] Thoughts on PIL and Pillow Message-ID: <20130528231959.55f2ffd3@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20130528195840.2718704b@gentoo.org> References: <20130528195840.2718704b@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.17; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Discussions centering around the Python ecosystem in Gentoo Linux X-BeenThere: gentoo-python@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-python@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/qc5Y46cefKaxdmer9YNqAAf"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: d38c065b-f9c6-4933-9aff-be931e934c9d X-Archives-Hash: 5f7d91711bdb80604f9ce4620eac3d4e --Sig_/qc5Y46cefKaxdmer9YNqAAf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 28 May 2013 19:58:40 +0200 Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > On Tue, 28 May 2013 13:45:22 -0400 > Mike Gilbert wrote: >=20 > > 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? > >=20 > > 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. >=20 > 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? >=20 > 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 --Sig_/qc5Y46cefKaxdmer9YNqAAf Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRpR+EAAoJEIN+7RD5ejah1kYH/1dywjSm6uolAO1ux0aZlO0F VBSIjx84+5ob56/uUOXhRwnj/Zivn+f2tBE7d+icButpWVQwCUstxnX7WlohXU4d 8J50fbSHeOQ4ktleGS6wDtAMa7hIeE8z949ULlVmKOzNY/aOoAGRwLxvGUgW+UVs JFzlID5UTLYplPq3hRU+dV3Aj1VFPETJUFbNXKdVKzPO6PrVldVK5hTGM4+hDRfj CPHIX2YaSKSVVZnD1qRJ38u3Om7mde+K4p/DqGNAwBfNs+Jsd8WtBmpbQGjOEyoH 5HkMIlP5IxxZBFaC76e6sz1aLs17VbnWY/yZu7c/0bn5n5y4/qF+HsBxF00nZ6M= =SKdm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/qc5Y46cefKaxdmer9YNqAAf--