| 1 |
On 11/1/05, Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 02:10:03PM -0600, Kito wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I'll let Brian answer this, but I'm fairly certain there is no chance |
| 4 |
> > of this making it into the 2.0 series, 2.1 is dead, so 3.0 will have |
| 5 |
> > to be our saviour (boooo! hsssss! bad pun) |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> No way in hell on 2.0; 2.1 was released dead (the major changes of it |
| 8 |
> are a year old), 3.0 would be the only _potential_ portage target. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Why did I say potential? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Cause I'm after making an ancillary point so everyone is on the same |
| 13 |
> page here- portage will *not* have any prefix support without the |
| 14 |
> ebuild changes being vetted by gentoo community. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I had to look up 'ancillary' and 'vet.' Vocabulary++. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> What's being worked on is a prototype- the prototype will be useful on |
| 19 |
> it's own, but the main point of it is demonstrating that it's doable |
| 20 |
> and the pros/cons of it. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Please keep this in mind. Bit of a reality check (kito and I are |
| 23 |
> operating under this)- comments of the sort "when portage supports |
| 24 |
> prefix "... |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Portage will only mainline support PREFIX if devs agree to the underlying |
| 27 |
> ebuild changes. So... help make it clean, but be aware of the rules being |
| 28 |
> operated under please. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Very good to know, especieally as I was one of those assuming it was a |
| 31 |
"when" and not an "if." Do the 'rules being operated under' consist |
| 32 |
of what you mentioned above (i.e. prefixed installs are a one-off |
| 33 |
prototype unless/until everyone accepts it), or is there more to it |
| 34 |
than that? |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |
Archives