[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] Merge 7 Fedora wallpapers packages to single one with slots?
From:       Alec Warner <antarus () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2018-01-27 21:58:45
Message-ID: CAAr7Pr_AOtdGuMciV_cGkdDbRce9yLZFCBDG6isz5V_fK2jbFw () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 11:32 AM, Michael Orlitzky <mjo@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 01/27/2018 11:09 AM, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> >
> > I noticed that we have 7 packages on Fedora wallpapers with names that
> > only explain themselves to Fedora insiders:
>

So traditionally we follow upstream package naming. If we aim to deviate,
I'd prefer we have strong reasons for it.


> >
> > ...
> >
> > I was thinking that we could merge these packages into a new package
> > "x11-themes/fedora-backgrounds" or so with slots 11 to 16 so that people
> > can still install them in parallel, get slot updates automatically,
> > adding more recent ones does not add more packages, and the package name
> > explains itself.
>

Why not just make x11-themes/fedora-backgrounds, a metapackage that
includes all of the packages?


>
> If you do merge them, then it might be better to use flags for the
> different sub-packages rather than slots. There's no place to describe
> what a slot is for, but having a local USE=solar with a corresponding
> description in metadata.xml is (relatively) discoverable.
>

[Attachment #3 (text/html)]

<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jan \
27, 2018 at 11:32 AM, Michael Orlitzky <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a \
href="mailto:mjo@gentoo.org" target="_blank">mjo@gentoo.org</a>&gt;</span> \
wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px \
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>On 01/27/2018 11:09 AM, Sebastian Pipping \
wrote:<br> &gt; Hi!<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I noticed that we have 7 packages on Fedora wallpapers with names that<br>
&gt; only explain themselves to Fedora \
insiders:<br></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>So traditionally we follow \
upstream package naming. If we aim to deviate, I&#39;d prefer we have strong reasons \
for it.</div><div>  </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 \
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span> &gt;<br>
</span>&gt; ...<br>
<span>&gt;<br>
&gt; I was thinking that we could merge these packages into a new package<br>
&gt; &quot;x11-themes/fedora-backgrounds<wbr>&quot; or so with slots 11 to 16 so that \
people<br> &gt; can still install them in parallel, get slot updates \
automatically,<br> &gt; adding more recent ones does not add more packages, and the \
package name<br> &gt; explains itself.<br></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Why \
not just make x11-themes/fedora-backgrounds, a metapackage that includes all of the \
packages?</div><div>  <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 \
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span> <br>
</span>If you do merge them, then it might be better to use flags for the<br>
different sub-packages rather than slots. There&#39;s no place to describe<br>
what a slot is for, but having a local USE=solar with a corresponding<br>
description in metadata.xml is (relatively) \
discoverable.<br></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div \
class="gmail_extra"><br></div></div>



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]