On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 06:34 +0100, Heiko Baums wrote: > Am Sun, 16 Jan 2011 23:16:58 -0600 > schrieb Brad Fanella <bradfane...@archlinux.us>: > > > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Martti Kühne <mysat...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 10:44:10PM +0100, Seblu wrote: > > >>> Yes great. I'm not paid by package i maintain. > > >>> Do not misunderstand my intentions, this package is more often > > >>> used without gtk (subjective). > > >>> It's a really useful package for debugging network issues and got > > >>> it in a server is a plus. > > >>> Server => no gtk => no user repository packages. This was my > > >>> reasoning. > > >> > > > > > > I find this a really good idea, there is no reason for mtr to > > > require X to be running. So I suggest moving mtr-gtk into aur and > > > having a "sane" mtr package using the cli interface (on which ARCH > > > users are so keen :-P -- ). > > > > > > mar77i > > > > > > > Why do you suggest that? Can't we have "mtr" (which is the CLI > > version) and "mtr-gtk" in the repos? Just curious. > > I haven't read the whole thread, but this is indeed so easy. Just create > a split package mtr which builds the two packages mtr-cli and mtr-gtk. > mtr-cli could then be removed from AUR. > > A request for such a split package should be filed to flyspray as a bug > report or feature request for the package mtr from [extra]. And the > removal request for the AUR package mtr-cli would then belong to this > mailing list. > > Heiko
+1 for Heiko, indeed just split mtr and give the user both the options. -- Jelle van der Waa