Am Sun, 16 Jan 2011 23:16:58 -0600 schrieb Brad Fanella :

On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Martti Kühne 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

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 :

...

On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Martti Kühne 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. -- Florian Pritz -- {flo,bluewind}@server-speed.net

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 12:35 PM, dave reisner wrote:

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

No, no, you have an excellent point there. The vim/gvim split is an strong example, and quite frankly, I don't see where a problem arises in splitting the package.

Why not keep it simple while providing the best of both worlds? If the binaries conflict, rename the GTK one mtr-gtk, install the non-GTK binary as mtr-cli, and provide a symlink to mtr-cli named mtr (or to mtr-gtk if you want to preserve present behavior). Double-compilation in the PKGBUILD might be ugly, but it's no uglier than a split package and it has the same effect. Of course I'm assuming that the compiled binaries are small enough to make including both negligible. Or split the package, but still install the binary for each with the aforementioned names.

On 01/18/2011 07:57 PM, Bartek Piotrowski wrote:

I think that mlt package should be splitted too. Now it depends on GTK and Qt, what is totally stupid for me. Mlt compiles without Qt (mlt-gtk in AUR) or without GTK (mlt-qt and mlt-git) and works fine.

since yesterday mtr and mtr-gtk are in extra. mtr has only the ncurses gui mtr-gtk has gtk and ncurses thread closed. -- Ionuț