On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 19:26:02 -0500, Stephen P. Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Well, you can expect the arch teams to run an emerge kde-meta for the > > masked ebuilds and atleast report bugs, no? > > Don't know about the other arches, but not the mips team.
How is it different to emerge kde and report bugs? If the mics team doesnt do that they they dont support the monolithic ebuilds either. > > Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but you apply the patches when you > > extract the source. If exactly the same source package is extracted > > and same patches are applied, where would the problem be? -- In all > > other cases, it will only be a matter of saying, here, we made this > > patch for the kdebase source (which doesnt make a difference if its on > > portage on not), and it will be the job of the KDE team to add it to > > the split ebuilds which I'm sure they'll happily do. Am I completely > > off here? > > You are completely missing the point. The issue is we don't have the > time or resources to make sure that many individual ebuilds work on our > arch, and that it will vastly increase the time it takes for our users > to install/uninstall everything. I dont mean to be rude, but you're missing the point. All the meta packages do is do what the monolithic packages do. Call ./configure && make && make install. Only in individual folders. No matter how you look at it, you still create a patch against kdebase or kdemultimedia, etc. The rest is just running a simple script to change the KEYWORDS line on the packages owned by the meta package (i.e. kdebase-meta). It doesnt make any difference on arch team's end. -- [email protected] mailing list
