On 08/17/2017 12:48 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > W dniu śro, 16.08.2017 o godzinie 22∶07 -0700, użytkownik Daniel > Campbell napisał: >> On 08/10/2017 01:10 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> On czw, 2017-08-10 at 09:54 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: >>>> On 10-08-2017 09:40:30 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: >>>>> On czw, 2017-08-10 at 06:58 +0200, Nicolas Bock wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:11:19AM +0200, Nicolas Bock wrote: >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would like to add neomutt to the tree. This new package is meant as >>>>>>> an alternative and not a replacement of the existing mutt package. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for all of the great suggestions and feedback! >>>>>> >>>>>> This is round two. I have update the ebuild with all your >>>>>> suggestions. I have also added support for eselecting between mutt >>>>>> and neomutt. Before the eselect ebuild can land though, we need to >>>>>> rename the mutt binary so that the managed link can be called >>>>>> mutt. >>>>> >>>>> What for? How many people are exactly in the dire need of having both >>>>> installed simultaneously and switching between them? If you really can't >>>>> learn to type the new command, add IUSE=symlink blocking original mutt >>>>> and be done with it. Don't add more unowned files to /usr by another >>>>> poorly written eselect module. >>>> >>>> Be nice! No need to be bitchy here (and in the rest of your review). >>>> Nicolas is just trying. >>>> >>>> Me, as maintainer of Mutt, thought it was a good idea, because it allows >>>> people to easily have both installed at the same time, which in this >>>> interesting time for both projects is not a weird thing to have. >>> >>> I don't see how eselect helps that. People can just run neomutt by >>> typing... neomutt, right? It works without the symlink, right? >>> >>>> If there is a policy/move to get rid of eselect, then sorry, I am not >>>> aware of that. I can live with a symlink USE-flag. It doesn't seem >>>> very elegant to me, but it would work for this scenario. >>>> >>> >>> The move is against orphaned files in /usr that are randomly changed by >>> runtime tools rather than the package manager. >>> >> >> Then how do we explain the reasoning for the other 50 or so eselect >> modules? No doubt at least a handful of them modify symlinks in /usr, >> and have similarly few options to choose from, such as eselect-vi. >> Should we remove those as well? >> > > Mistakes of the past are no excuse to commit more mistakes. You should > know that because I had to repeat this many times. Some of the eselect > modules have been fixed since then giving major improvements (see: > eselect-opengl). >
I can agree with that, but you seemed opposed to the entire idea of an eselect module for upstreams that own the same file; e.g. neomutt being a drop-in replacement for mutt. Are you instead opposing a cobbled-together eselect module? What would it take to ensure the RO /usr use-case could be supported while simultaneously allowing easy switching? Does eselect-opengl support RO /usr? If not, then it's a little unreasonable to expect other modules to do it since you pointed to it as a good example. What is your true opinion? -- Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
