[SM-Discuss] enlightenment, e17, e16
eric at sandall.us
Tue Feb 28 23:48:07 EST 2006
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Ladislav Hagara wrote:
> Howdy all,
> as users of Enlightenment DR17 certainly know, the original
> enlightenment spell has been split into new enlightenment spell and e17
> spell in devel, test and stable-rc grimoire.
> Stable grimoire still contains original enlightenment spell which offer
> users to choose DR16 or DR17 version.
> (I was maintaining e-cvs grimoire  some time and on 2004-03-26 I
> created "e" section in standard grimoire and became its maintainer. On
> 2004-12-15 I added DR17 support to enlightenment spell. After one year
> on 2005-12-18 the DR17 support was removed from enlightenment spell and
> e17 spell was created. I as a maintainer did not agree with it.)
At the time you just said you didn't agree with it and didn't give, to
me, valid reasons why one package should install two different
packages (e17 is very different from e16). I waited for over two
months for a response: received nothing.
I would contend that I have at least equal vestment in the e section:
sandalle at moby:~/scm/p4/smgl/grimoires/devel/e$ grep -R Hagara *|wc -l
sandalle at moby:~/scm/p4/smgl/grimoires/devel/e$ grep -R Sandall *|wc -l
While you have created most of the packages (43 to my 13), I'd say
I've been doing a fair bit of maintaining of e as well.
> IMHO, new enlightenment spell is confusing because it installs stable
> DR16 version, it uses source e16-0.16.8.tar.gz, the binary file is
> /usr/bin/e16 and desktop file e16.desktop.
> Spell e17 installs binary /usr/bin/enlightenment and
> enlightenment.desktop. When e17 become stable it should be probably
> renamed back to enlightenment. Users who want to install DR17 are
> confused now when they "cast enlightenment" and install "old" version.
> Moreover some dependencies are broken .
Then you should have mentioned that as a possible recourse instead of
saying, "Splitting enlightenment is bad." I (and several users) wanted
both e16 and e17 installed, but you seemed to not want to allow that
in any way. So me, as a developer and user and after waiting months
for a good reason not to split them went ahead and finished the split.
Many of those name changes also happened after I started the split,
which is what prompted me to finish the split as now I no longer had
to change the binary/script names myself (kwo had taken care of this
> What next?
> Personally I would merge e17 back into enlightenment spell. Seems Gentoo
> also use one enlightenment ebuild for DR16 and DR17 . The next
> possibility is to rename new enlightenment spell to e16 spell (we would
> have e16 and e17 spells), or rename enlightenment to e16 and e17 to new
> enlightenment. All is better than current state.
> What is your opinion?
As long as e16 and e17 are both installable I (and probably the other
users) would be happy. If you want I can go ahead and reverse the
split, making 'enlightenment' DR17 and an e16 package for DR16. Either
way is fine with me, but I felt that leaving the current enlightenment
package as is was the best choice, especially since DR17 is still
'alpha' and binary/script names could still change (since when DR18
comes out, DR17 would then be renamed to 'e17', or they could just
name it 'e17' now and save the hassle).
>  http://bugs.sourcemage.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3977
>  http://bugs.sourcemage.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10586
Eric Sandall | Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
eric at sandall.us | http://www.sourcemage.org/
http://eric.sandall.us/ | SysAdmin @ Inst. Shock Physics @ WSU
http://counter.li.org/ #196285 | http://www.shock.wsu.edu/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v188.8.131.52 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the SM-Discuss