| 1 |
Maybe a dumb question, but wouldn't it be possible to just provide GRP |
| 2 |
instead of the stage2,3 (= one huge GRP tarball anyway). |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Pieter |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
On 29 Apr 2004, at 01:00, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 17:58, John Davis wrote: |
| 9 |
>> On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 17:52, Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 10 |
>>> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 05:36:13PM -0400 or thereabouts, Nathaniel |
| 11 |
>>> McCallum wrote: |
| 12 |
>>>> I thought online GRP packages would be with this release, however, |
| 13 |
>>>> I'm |
| 14 |
>>>> not seeing GRP packages on any of the mirrors. Am I in |
| 15 |
>>>> cloud-cuckoo-land? |
| 16 |
>>> |
| 17 |
>>> This didn't make it into 2004.1. |
| 18 |
>>> |
| 19 |
>>> --kurt |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> I purposely excluded them because I am working on the following: |
| 22 |
>> http://dev.gentoo.org/~zhen/glep0026.txt |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
>> Keep in mind that it is very, very rough. Very. I mean it! You get the |
| 25 |
>> jist though. Now that 2004.1 is done, I can focus some of my time on |
| 26 |
>> it |
| 27 |
>> and make it formal. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Note that this may make compile time on other-arch boxes a bottleneck, |
| 30 |
> especially if every change is expected to be provided in GRP form. I |
| 31 |
> would more strongly support a consistent release cycle for GRPs |
| 32 |
> (bi-quarterly, perhaps) with exceptions for security or |
| 33 |
> otherwise-critical updates. |
| 34 |
> -- |
| 35 |
> Donnie Berkholz |
| 36 |
> Gentoo Linux |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-releng@g.o mailing list |
Archives