On Mon, Jun 20, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> Ok guys this is again half-assed solution with package suffixes and others.
This is for the current way of publishing packages.
> We need to do this properly.
I'm actually ok with reorganizing the whole project layout. Since the
resulting layout is not
Ok guys this is again half-assed solution with package suffixes and others.
We need to do this properly.
1) Have packman-essentials-Factory project
* builds against factory only
* links only factory packages
* links only factory deps
2) Have packman-essentials-Product project
* Builds only
On 6/20/16, Frederic Crozat wrote:
> Le lun. 20 juin 2016 à 10:07, Dave Plater a écrit :
>
>> This thread has the wrong subject.
>>
>
> Not anymore ;)
>
> I think this is a proposal for a new Packman model.
>> Rolling release Packman and stable Packman,
On Mon, Jun 20, Frederic Crozat wrote:
> Le lun. 20 juin 2016 à 10:07, Dave Plater a écrit :
> I think this is a proposal for a new Packman model.
> > Rolling release Packman and stable Packman, because ATM it is
> > impossible to have both but maybe Richard can help to
Le lun. 20 juin 2016 à 10:07, Dave Plater a écrit :
> This thread has the wrong subject.
>
Not anymore ;)
I think this is a proposal for a new Packman model.
> Rolling release Packman and stable Packman, because ATM it is
> impossible to have both but maybe Richard can