[aur-general] mtr-cli (was: TU Application - Seblu)

[dave reisner]

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Florian Pritz <bluewind at 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 <bradfanella at archlinux.us>:
> >>
> >> > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Martti Kühne <mysatyre at 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