| 1 |
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 11:32 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 06-07-2009 11:14:07 +0200, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 11:02 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > > > > Wouldn't it be more worthwhile to merge our portage changes back to |
| 6 |
> > > > > trunk and get a prefix aware portage released officially before we worry |
| 7 |
> > > > > about merging individual packages/eclasses? |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > > Is there anyone going to help me out with this? |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > How comfortable are portage-dev's with prefix branch already? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> not? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I could easily generate the latest diff for us to review though before |
| 16 |
> we kick (parts of it) to them. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
one other thing: if i have a completely new package (regarding bug |
| 21 |
250843; i have prepared the interix-6 specific fork library), should i |
| 22 |
add this to the prefix svn or the gx86 cvs? how will it be synced to the |
| 23 |
prefix rsync then? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
this brings me to another idea regarding synching: why not skim through |
| 26 |
the gx86 tree, and sync any package containing any of the prefix |
| 27 |
keywords only? this way, gx86-only packages wouldn't end up in the |
| 28 |
prefix rsync tree (so much for the multi-thousand package problem)... |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
may i also suggest to somehow review/incorporate the cross-prefix stuff |
| 31 |
in that portage? i know it's low priority, but if prefix portage is in |
| 32 |
main, it would _really_ make sense to be able and bootstrap a prefix on |
| 33 |
top of gentoo main in less than a minute (just emerge baselayout, |
| 34 |
portage and two small helper packages). |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
if it doesn't make it into portage, i'll be happy continuing patch |
| 37 |
maintainance anyway - just a thought ;) |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
cheers, Markus |
Archives