| 1 |
On Thursday, April 24, 2003, at 04:50 am, George Shapovalov wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Wednesday 23 April 2003 17:32, Stroller wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On Tuesday, April 22, 2003, at 02:17 pm, Peter Ruskin wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> On Tuesday 22 Apr 2003 13:59, Frantz Dhin wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>> ... maybe we could make a |
| 7 |
>>>> new keyword? x86 for stable, ~x86 for unstable, and ^x86 for |
| 8 |
>>>> lunatic? |
| 9 |
>>> I couldn't agree more! |
| 10 |
>> Me, either! I don't know that "lunatic" is the best word, but it |
| 11 |
>> seems to me that an additional hierarchy [0] allows for a framework |
| 12 |
>> more flexible & extensible for end lusers. As I understand it builds |
| 13 |
>> with the |
| 14 |
> Unfortunately this is not that easy. Just accepting ebuild in and |
| 15 |
> letting them |
| 16 |
> rot is either a dead-end or a security breach (or both :). |
| 17 |
.... |
| 18 |
> Please take a look at #1523 to see what's on the plate ;). |
| 19 |
>> [1] Am I correctly abbreviating "^86, ^ppc or whatever" here? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Yeah, sorry. I'm clearly not qualified to comment. I decided to make my |
| 22 |
reply before reading others about multiple rsync servers &c. My main |
| 23 |
reason for posting was to object to the suggestion of naming a USE flag |
| 24 |
after a hypothetical Honda. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I haven't had the chance to read your full proposal yet, but just the |
| 27 |
title of "Distributed ebuild processing system" sounds inspiring - I |
| 28 |
look forward to giving it my full attention, and eventually to seeing |
| 29 |
the results. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Stroller. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Enjoyed this post? Thanks for reading - Give me a job! |
| 36 |
Technical support / system administration |
| 37 |
Linux / Unix / Windows / Mac OS X - UK or anywhere considered |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives