On Friday 22 December 2006 10:59, Erich Focht wrote: > Hi Geoffroy, > > On Friday 22 December 2006 16:38, Geoffroy VALLEE wrote: > > Ok i understand and i agree with everything you say. > > But my problem is currently that because we are in a transition phase to > > that next usage model, it is painful for me to port OSCAR on Debian. So > > if you guys do not mind, i would like to continue to include into OSCAR > > small mechanisms such as OPKG exclusion based on the distro of the > > headnode (mechanism only used by Debian today). That allows me to say for > > example "Sorry the Debian support is not complete enough to support > > yume". These new mechanisms should not break anything since they are > > orthogonal to existing OSCAR mechanisms. > > I understand the issue and agree to your approach. That isn't bad, anyway. > > Ultimately it would be nice(r) to have this as top-level config.xml filter, > as we discussed several times. Instead of the binary-pkg filter. Or in > addition to it, actually. Maybe we get that done, too, for 5.1. >
Again i agree with you. We should be able to specify this kind of stuff within the config.xml for each OPKG. What i did is just a temporary solution. > Regards, > Erich > > PS: ... and Merry Christmas to you guys! And a Happy New Year!!! Merry Christmas and happy new year to you too. -- Geoff ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Oscar-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oscar-devel
