| 1 |
begin quote |
| 2 |
On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 14:57:11 -0400 |
| 3 |
Jon Portnoy <avenj@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> Put buildpkg in FEATURES and you'll have binary packages just as good |
| 7 |
> as RPMs built automatically every time you merge something. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
not 100% really, since theres no automatic signing/hash of the packages |
| 10 |
(rpm has this, good feature) |
| 11 |
as well as some rebuild dependencies might not be resolved.. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
foo depends on gal, but gal removes the softlinks and forces |
| 14 |
dependencies to rebuild or retain the old version.. such things should |
| 15 |
ofc. be resolved (gal is a problemchild in general) but, we lack that |
| 16 |
functionality. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Theres a few other "good" things about the rpm format, although it isn't |
| 20 |
as flexible as our packages are ;) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
But, my point was about distribution of this. how/wether it is a |
| 25 |
good/bad and even doable thing |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
//Spider |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
begin .signature |
| 33 |
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature! |
| 34 |
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. |
| 35 |
end |
Archives