[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 10:50:56PM +0400, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
> >> This is not consistent either. When following this approach we
> >> should have meta-pkgs/bulk-all package to build all possible
> >> packages.
> > I don't see how that follows.
> The purpose of these 'bulk" packages is not to provide some consistent
> installation, they are collections of packages that might be useful.
> All packages might be useful, thus we should have bulk-all.
That is nonsense, especially since all of the bulk tools are perfectly
capable of building "all packages" on their own.
> pbulk also suits better the original intention, which is to track state
> rather than build all of the software. If some optional packaged stops
> building, pbulk will step over and continue with packages that can be built
> while meta-package will just stop.
I don't understand. You realize that the point is to put "bulk-medium"
in pbulk's packages-to-build list, right? (Or, if not pbulk, whatever
your favorite other build tool is...)
> Finally, there's political issue
...which is only a problem if you want to make it one.
> This demonstrates that the idea wasn't that good from the very beginning.
Yeah whatever. Thanks for sharing this back when I was first talking
about it months ago.
David A. Holland
Main Index |
Thread Index |