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. Regards, Erich PS: ... and Merry Christmas to you guys! And a Happy New Year!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
