| 1 |
Martin Schlemmer [azarah@g.o] wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 2003-05-08 at 18:35, Mark Bainter wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > I would disagree with this. I have quite a few ebuilds that are in |
| 5 |
> > my local portage tree purely so I can run the cvs version of a few |
| 6 |
> > appliations and still manage it with portage. It would definately |
| 7 |
> > be nice if there was a clean way to handle it within the portage |
| 8 |
> > system itself. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> We do not really want to support it officially, as there are no way |
| 12 |
> to do proper QA on it. Rather then use a static cvs snapshot, as |
| 13 |
> that you can apply patches to, etc. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Hrm. How do you mean? Do you mean you don't want to make it easier |
| 16 |
to do because it might appear you support those types of packages, |
| 17 |
or that you don't want to put those sorts of ebuilds in the tree |
| 18 |
other than in one-off cases? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
If the latter, I don't think that necessarily excludes the possibility |
| 21 |
of providing some sort of support for that type of package within |
| 22 |
portage itself as a convenience for those of us writing the builds |
| 23 |
locally right? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Though obviously, since it's not going to be used by gentoo at large |
| 26 |
I would expect that one of us who actually has to deal with it would |
| 27 |
spend the time writing it, as better uses of official gentoo developer |
| 28 |
time exist. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives