Hi, On 09/07/2015 07:28 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > On 09/06/2015 02:00 PM, Jauhien Piatlicki wrote: >> Hi, > >> On 09/05/2015 11:23 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >>> On 09/05/2015 01:04 PM, Matthew Thode wrote: > >>>> I think cargo should probably go in dev-util with other rust >>>> libraries and programs going into dev-rust as needed, but >>>> that's just me :D >>> >>> Agreed. dev-util until it grows in size (isn't the >>> recommendation 5-10+ pkgs?), then dev-rust. Despite the package >>> moves being somewhat cumbersome, it makes more sense to do it >>> once it's clear Rust has an ecosystem going rather than catch >>> stragglers in its infancy. >>> > >> Ok, looks quite logical for me. So the next question. I remember >> portage had some problems with moving packages. Would it work if >> I'll move dev-rust/cargo to dev-util/cargo in our overlay now. And >> later when rust infrastructure grows move it in the main tree back >> to dev-rust? Or will it break something? > >> -- Jauhien > > > Now that we're on git, I don't see why a quick `git mv old-cat/foo > new-cat/foo` wouldn't get the job done. Don't quote me on it, but my > guess is it would work fine. Then make sure the profile data gets > updated by updating the relevant file(s). > > If you're keeping it in an overlay until you think it's ready for the > Gentoo repo, you may as well keep it whatever you want since it's not > bound by Gentoo policy. I would start with dev-util, even in tree, and > migrate to dev-rust when it reaches critical mass on packages (I'd say > at least ten). > >
I'm speaking not about git, but about portage move [1] (see Moving ebuilds there). This is unrelated to version control. [1] https://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-maintenance/index.html
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
