On 28/01/17 20:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Samstag, 28. Januar 2017, 20:32:54 CET schrieb M. J. Everitt:
>> How does this compare/contrast/integrate with kent\n's proposal
>> regarding "profiles.types"?
> Oops.
>
> Sorry I'm a bit back in mailing list reading. I came up with this some time
Am Samstag, 28. Januar 2017, 20:32:54 CET schrieb M. J. Everitt:
>
> How does this compare/contrast/integrate with kent\n's proposal
> regarding "profiles.types"?
Oops.
Sorry I'm a bit back in mailing list reading. I came up with this some time
ago, and wanted to finally send it out. Will read
On 28/01/17 20:01, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> So, things are a little bit messy right now. We have "stable arches", "arches
> that are ~arch only (but occasional stable keywords can pop up and be
> ignored)", "arches that are ~arch only". In addition, some are always checked
> with repoman, som
So, things are a little bit messy right now. We have "stable arches", "arches
that are ~arch only (but occasional stable keywords can pop up and be
ignored)", "arches that are ~arch only". In addition, some are always checked
with repoman, some only with -d or (hic sunt leones) -e flag.
The la
