On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 13:09:36 +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote: > On Saturday 24 December 2005 12:34, Peter wrote: >> THAT is a very reasonable comment! > > Not at all. "Meta ebuilds" are a provisional and fugly workaround as long as > we have to wait for proper sets and only to be used for a larger set of > packages. Wrapping three or four ebuilds with another one, just for the sake > of lazy people having only to emerge a single ebuild is ridiculous. The only > valid point in the original idea to merge the nvidia-* packages is to reduce > the overall number of packages in the repository. As you heard the voices > against it, ranging from none to valid reasons, everything left is to bury > the idea and to close the bug. > > > Carsten
Would you please add the comments to the bug report? Or, may I copy them? Please advise. Also, I find it absolutely fascinating that the only people against this concept are devs, and the only people for it are users. Remember that users are your customers. Every effort should be made to keep them happy. If you are against meta ebuilds, what is your opinion on KDE? Instead on 9 (or so) packages, there are now over 250! Are 250 separate ebuilds better? I cannot think of another distro that slices up KDE that way. Meta ebuilds at least allow the user the ability to opt out of trying to decide which ebuilds to emerge! I always used to use CVS to update my KDE source tree, then compile only the changed modules. I could have a whole updated KDE inside an hour. Now that is performance! Here, with the unified nvidia, the intent was to REDUCE ebuilds and simplify installation process. I thought the recommendation of a meta nvidia ebuild is a worthy one worth consideration. IMHO sometimes the desire to fine tune things and optimize things goes a little over the edge. nVidia upstream combines all the products together in their .run files. There is minimal time difference between having the entire suite installed versus each one individually. And, from a user's point of view, what could be simpler? Anyway, I appreciate your feedback. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
