| 1 |
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 02:10:03PM -0600, Kito wrote: |
| 2 |
> I'll let Brian answer this, but I'm fairly certain there is no chance |
| 3 |
> of this making it into the 2.0 series, 2.1 is dead, so 3.0 will have |
| 4 |
> to be our saviour (boooo! hsssss! bad pun) |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
No way in hell on 2.0; 2.1 was released dead (the major changes of it |
| 7 |
are a year old), 3.0 would be the only _potential_ portage target. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Why did I say potential? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Cause I'm after making an ancillary point so everyone is on the same |
| 12 |
page here- portage will *not* have any prefix support without the |
| 13 |
ebuild changes being vetted by gentoo community. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
What's being worked on is a prototype- the prototype will be useful on |
| 16 |
it's own, but the main point of it is demonstrating that it's doable |
| 17 |
and the pros/cons of it. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Please keep this in mind. Bit of a reality check (kito and I are |
| 20 |
operating under this)- comments of the sort "when portage supports |
| 21 |
prefix "... |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Portage will only mainline support PREFIX if devs agree to the underlying |
| 24 |
ebuild changes. So... help make it clean, but be aware of the rules being |
| 25 |
operated under please. |
| 26 |
~harring |
Archives