Gentoo Archives: gnap-dev

From: "josé Alberto Suárez López" <bass@g.o>
To: gnap-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gnap-dev] State of the union
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 07:45:07
Message-Id: 1211787867.1265.3.camel@supercoco
In Reply to: [gnap-dev] State of the union by Philipp Riegger
Hi,

thanks for your work :) so please next time confirm things like this
with me, in the last email i told you i was creating the repository and
than i will wait last week for a reply about the name. I was creating
this morning the new repository when i readed your email.

El dom, 25-05-2008 a las 14:47 +0200, Philipp Riegger escribió:
> Hi everybody! > > We just created gnap-dev on Google Code: > http://code.google.com/p/gnap-dev/ > So please drop us (Andrey or me) a line and we will add you to the > project. > > Furthermore we added gnap-dev as email address where all svn commits > will be sent. This is ok, i guess, because this is a development list. > And it is too much overhead to create an extra list for that. I filed a > bug to get these messages whitelisted: > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=223551 > > Next thing: I'd like to reorganize the repository and the ebuilds. I > would like to split it the other way around than they are at the moment. > I'd like to have: > > A) One ebuild called gnap, that installes all gnap_* scripts, > documentation and examples. > > B) ebuilds of the form gnap-x86-uclibc, gnap-x86-glibc, > gnap-x86-uclibc-hardened,... for each target we support containing a > seedstage, build gnap base fs, maybe prebuilt extensions and the portage > snapshot. We could controll the installation of prebuild extensions, > prebuilt base fs and maybe other stuff with USE-flags. We could also > split the portage snapshot into an extra ebuild in case multiple targets > share the same one. > > A should have regular version numbers, like 2.0, 2.1, whatever, B should > only have dates as version. > > Comments? > > Thanks, > Philipp > > >
-- gnap-dev@l.g.o mailing list