| 1 |
On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 20:57 -0500, Jeremy Olexa wrote: |
| 2 |
> Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > - update gx86 cvs checkout |
| 5 |
> > - rsync it without CVS dirs to the candidate image |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Wouldn't the official gx86 rsync mirror be sufficient to avoid the cvs |
| 8 |
checkout here? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> > - update Prefix tree svn checkout |
| 11 |
> > - remove all packages in the candidate image which exist in the Prefix |
| 12 |
> > tree |
| 13 |
> > - rsync the Prefix tree without .svn dirs over the candidate image |
| 14 |
> > - distribute the candidate image to rsync1 |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
While I'm aware that we will have to use the whole gx86 tree once, it |
| 17 |
feels like too early to bloat the prefix tree by >11500 packages (>13700 |
| 18 |
packages in gx86 versus >2200 in prefix). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Eventually keep some list of packages (or directories) to incorporate |
| 21 |
unmodified from gx86 (profiles, eclass, mail-client/mutt) for prefix |
| 22 |
rsync generation instead... |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> Wouldn't it be more worthwhile to merge our portage changes back to |
| 25 |
> trunk and get a prefix aware portage released officially before we worry |
| 26 |
> about merging individual packages/eclasses? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Agreed, sys-apps/portage should be one of the very first prefix-aware |
| 29 |
packages in gx86. This would allow for easy bootstrapping some Prefix |
| 30 |
instances on top of a normal Gentoo Linux without the need to manually |
| 31 |
install the initial prefix-aware portage. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
And when we add some app-portage/eprefix-bootstrap.ebuild to gx86, |
| 34 |
normal gx86 users&devs could enjoy the Prefix world somehow easily, |
| 35 |
using their /usr/portage/ with Prefix tree as usual overlay (TODO: |
| 36 |
finish this thought)... |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
/haubi/ |
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Michael Haubenwallner |
| 41 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives