| 1 |
On 10/04/2010 12:50 AM, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 09/30/2010 09:36 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 4 |
>> as I've only recently "graduated to developer", I've got a question about |
| 5 |
>> this. Diego, your request makes perfect sense to me. But, so far I always |
| 6 |
>> thought "Python, portage, and gcc are the things that I really need to rely |
| 7 |
>> on, so whatever I do, I'll keep those stable." |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> (My development machine(s) are also my real-life work machines.) |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> As I do second these concerns, another thought: |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> While /portage/ is vital to our distro (not only) for end users (including |
| 14 |
> devs doing their workwork on Gentoo systems), /repoman/ isn't. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> So - would it make sense to split repoman into its own ebuild? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> /haubi/ |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The thing is, parts of repoman are closely coupled to portage internals. |
| 21 |
So, if we split it out then in practice we'd end up having to do repoman |
| 22 |
version bumps to correspond with portage version bumps, which would |
| 23 |
eliminate any practical gain that we'd get from distributing it with a |
| 24 |
separate ebuild. |
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Thanks, |
| 27 |
Zac |
Archives