-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 7 Nov 2003 10:36, Ned Ludd emitted:

> From the pure amount of fundamental changes that are going to be needed
> in portage I also suggest that somebody from the dev-portage herd join
> the embedded herd or vice versa to help facilitate faster portage
> commits in directory's such as /home/cvsroot/gentoo-src/portage/bin
> which currently seem to take about 30 or more days from when something
> is reported.

Although I agree that all ebuilds built for the embedded project should be 
part of the portage tree (probably need some new categories), so that they 
could be installed using vanilla emerges on platforms with the guts to 
support it, should we perhaps consider a new emerge (emberge?, emergemb?, 
crossmerge?), using many of the portage facilities, but designed to support 
cross-compiling and building a target filesystem, rather than installing on 
the local box.  This would exist alongside emerge, but have its own config 
file structure , etc.

The reason I ask is that it occurs to me that some things that we might want 
(like, for example, multiple target platforms for the same emerge process, 
platform-specific patching, tracking local source tree changes) would provoke 
such supstantial changes in portage and things like make.conf that we're 
unlikely to get them without (1) a long fight (2) giving up some things we 
want.  Also, multi-platform cross-compiler support is such a significant 
retrofit that I'm wondering if it wouldn't result in either a nasty 
bag-on-the-side or a second system effect if we try to re-engineer portage.

- -- 
AJ Armstrong
aja@g.o

Memes are a hoax.  Pass it on.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/q/mdSgEAcQ45BAYRAqVXAKCVM4NDOpnS+QyRO5CCdce/HCSsRwCgkqT4
5sDQaW1k9WPIUor4bcBmy2c=
=THTU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-embedded@g.o mailing list