The advantage is that you this way can create your own independent
distribution for your particular software stack.
That's powerful, indeed, perhaps even more compelling when a considerable
subset of packages are not hosted by OpenPKG such as closed-source,
proprietary.
No, we also patch
On Sun, Oct 04, 2009, Armin B. Resch wrote:
The advantage is that you this way can create your own independent
distribution for your particular software stack.
That's powerful, indeed, perhaps even more compelling when a considerable
subset of packages are not hosted by OpenPKG such as
-
From: openpkg-users-ow...@openpkg.org [mailto:openpkg-users-
ow...@openpkg.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Johnson
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 12:02 PM
To: openpkg-users@openpkg.org
Subject: Re: Python-2.6.2 --with=db
On Oct 1, 2009, at 12:15 PM, Bill Campbell wrote:
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009
On Sat, Oct 03, 2009, Armin B. Resch wrote:
Thanks, guys, for your insights wrt the bsddb module which appears to be
deprecated, possibly in part due to the pitfalls you described. I guess one
way forward to ameliorate API ugliness was to abstract it behind a separate
python package
On Oct 3, 2009, at 5:13 AM, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
On Sat, Oct 03, 2009, Armin B. Resch wrote:
Thanks, guys, for your insights wrt the bsddb module which appears
to be
deprecated, possibly in part due to the pitfalls you described. I
guess one
way forward to ameliorate API ugliness
Hi Ralf,
Thanks for that. Option 6 is not unlike the first one, then. Your suggestion
is interesting, though. I do use the -r option against a local mirror, but
would have dealt with situations like that by simply adding the offending
package to an exclusion list on the build command (after
On Sat, Oct 03, 2009, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
On Sat, Oct 03, 2009, Armin B. Resch wrote:
Thanks, guys, for your insights wrt the bsddb module which appears to be
deprecated, possibly in part due to the pitfalls you described. I guess one
way forward to ameliorate API ugliness was to
On Sat, Oct 03, 2009, Armin B. Resch wrote:
Thanks for that. Option 6 is not unlike the first one, then. Your suggestion
is interesting, though. I do use the -r option against a local mirror, but
would have dealt with situations like that by simply adding the offending
package to an exclusion
Fellow OpenPKG-lers,
My python build failed after the most recent db rebuild
(db-4.8.24.0-20090920.src.rpm). After some googling, I came across this bug
report + patch:
http://bugs.python.org/issue6949
I appended the suggested patch to OpenPKG's python.patch and the build now
works for me.
Can
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009, Armin B. Resch wrote:
Fellow OpenPKG-lers,
My python build failed after the most recent db rebuild
(db-4.8.24.0-20090920.src.rpm). After some googling, I came across this bug
report + patch:
http://bugs.python.org/issue6949
I appended the suggested patch to OpenPKG's
On Oct 1, 2009, at 12:15 PM, Bill Campbell wrote:
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009, Armin B. Resch wrote:
Fellow OpenPKG-lers,
My python build failed after the most recent db rebuild
(db-4.8.24.0-20090920.src.rpm). After some googling, I came across
this bug
report + patch:
11 matches
Mail list logo