Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-ppc-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-ppc-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentooppc-dev@g.o
From: Owen Stampflee <owen@...>
Subject: Re: ARCH=ppc in unified portage and some downfalls
Date: Sun Jun 9 21:29:01 2002
Well, as I have said in IRC, I believe that creating a new rsync tree
would fix things for the moment. We could always have a testing tree for
those who want to use err test, err blow up their systems with the
latest packages.

Debian does it this way, keeping all the different archs seperate. With
a binary packaging method it has to be done this way so why isnt this
done when the packages are in source form? This would solve little
problems such as xforms and we could also fix other little things which
say they require nasm but don't really need it.

In the future it would be great if portage could do this automagically.
It could look at the arch and then pull from the correct tree.

Owen

-- 
Owen Stampflee - owen@...
http://penguinppc.org/~owen


Replies:
Re: ARCH=ppc in unified portage and some downfalls
-- Pieter Van den Abeele
References:
ARCH=ppc in unified portage and some downfalls
-- Mark Guertin
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-ppc-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
ARCH=ppc in unified portage and some downfalls
Next by thread:
Re: ARCH=ppc in unified portage and some downfalls
Previous by date:
ARCH=ppc in unified portage and some downfalls
Next by date:
Re: ARCH=ppc in unified portage and some downfalls


Updated Jun 17, 2009

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-ppc-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.