Hi,
I'm forking from a thread on gentoo-project:
On 17:26 Wed 17 Aug 2011, Markos Chandras wrote:
Personally, I want to shrink portage. There is no way for 250 listed
developers ( I would be glad if 100 of us were really active ) to
maintain thousands of ebuilds.
[...]
We need to support
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 19:45, Thomas Kahle to...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hi,
I'm forking from a thread on gentoo-project:
On 17:26 Wed 17 Aug 2011, Markos Chandras wrote:
Personally, I want to shrink portage. There is no way for 250 listed
developers ( I would be glad if 100 of us were really
how about adding a new tag metadata,xml so that it is not imported
into the rsync tree
Mario
2011/8/17 Alex Alexander wi...@gentoo.org:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 19:45, Thomas Kahle to...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hi,
I'm forking from a thread on gentoo-project:
On 17:26 Wed 17 Aug 2011, Markos
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 17/08/2011 06:04 ??, Mario Fetka wrote:
how about adding a new tag metadata,xml so that it is not imported
into the rsync tree
What is the difference between your proposal and removing the package?
In both cases, the broken ebuild does not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Kahle wrote:
Is there a way for X to easily query the portage history and dig up
the ebuild that was there at some point. She could then use the old
ebuild for their new version, but without efficient search she would
probably start from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 17/08/2011 05:56 ??, Alex Alexander wrote:
We could try removing all keywords and masking ebuilds that are
abandoned with bugs but upstream is still active, instead of
removing them completely. That way the ebuild will be there when/if
most users just hunt the program name and gentoo to a searchengine
they get the info that the ebuild is in cvs but in graveyard.
but hey i am just a user.
Mario
2011/8/17 Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 17/08/2011 06:04 ??, Mario Fetka
Am 17.08.2011 18:45, schrieb Thomas Kahle:
Hi,
I'm forking from a thread on gentoo-project:
On 17:26 Wed 17 Aug 2011, Markos Chandras wrote:
Personally, I want to shrink portage. There is no way for 250 listed
developers ( I would be glad if 100 of us were really active ) to
maintain
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Alex Alexander wi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 19:45, Thomas Kahle to...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hi,
I'm forking from a thread on gentoo-project:
On 17:26 Wed 17 Aug 2011, Markos Chandras wrote:
Personally, I want to shrink portage. There is no
Le 17/08/2011 21:57, Matthew Summers a écrit :
+1 on this. It saves the ebuild for posterity AND prevents users
hitting nasty bits. This seems to me to beg for a proper well-defined
policy, in any case.
We already have a policy for this and it's called portage.
If a package is broken (and I
10 matches
Mail list logo
