Daniel Ostrow wrote: > On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 23:18 +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote: > >> Hi folks, >> >> >> I know this issue is not actually in the scope of this list, but >> maybe some of you might be interested: >> >> Lots of packages have optional parts which (IMHO) should/could be >> their own packages, ie. GUI frontends to console tools (aumix) or >> several language bindings of certain libs/toolkits. >> >> Those things tend to produce circular dependencies, which can >> only be solved with tricks like multiple builds, special useflags >> like "build" or "bootstrap". >> >> For example berkeley db: it written in C and has additional >> bindings for C++ and Java. This produces two kind of problems: >> >> a) for the base system we must take care that it's built w/o them. >> b) if some package needs an special binding, dependencies get tricky >> (AFAIK portage cannot solve feature deps yet) >> >> An clean solution would be having the bindings as separate packages. >> Of course, often the upstream is not ready for this yet, and it's >> not in the scope of an distro like gentoo to such heavy changes. >> >> But those splits really should be done (IMHO) to make things a lot >> easier. So let's do it - do the split and try to convince the >> upstream to get it in. >> > > We release our packages as upstream intends. If they don't split them, > we don't split them, talk to upstream not us. This is what use flags are > for... > > --Dan > At what point is your sand so fine that you can't identify it as a grain. In other words...this induces a much larger set of packages that at least in my opinion would waste a lot of developer time for not a lot or any benefit, and as mentioned by Daniel we follow upstream and if they want it as one large package, we'll do it as well.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
