On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Florian Pritz <bluew...@server-speed.net>wrote:
> On 17.01.2011 09:46, Jelle van der Waa wrote: > > 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. > > You can't simply split mtr because it's only one binary. Shortly talked > to Ionut about that yesterday and he said moving mtr-cli to community is > no good idea because mtr (pretty much same PKGBUILD; just one dep and > option less) is already in extra. I agree with that one btw. > > Is there any way to get a good overview of how many people really use > the gtk ui? IMHO it seems to be missing some features that the cli has. > > I hate to do this, but I have to play devil's advocate here. This is _exactly_ what's done for the vim/gvim package. The build directory is _literally_ copied and the same package is built twice with extra options. Why is it okay there but not here? /me dodges incoming flames dave