Because I'm not using Arch for software development: I have to version control live-CDs, that is to say complete workspaces. Managing only source files would imply complete compilation of a system from the kernel to the Open Office suite passing by all modules, desktop environment, web browser and all other software needed by users: this would be anything else than a waste of time, and it is much practical to simply manage .deb files and a set of scripts which would build .iso images on demand…
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0600, Matthew Dempsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 19:41 +0100, Simon Geusebroek wrote: > > Yes, I know I'm asking a lot to Arch, but since it's also a revision > > control system, and that I have justly revisions to control, I'm sure > > it would be clever enough to manage to do what I'm asking to it :). > > It's still not clear why you'd prefer to revision control the binary > files rather than the source. > > -- > Matthew Dempsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnu-arch-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users > > GNU arch home page: > http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/ > > > _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
