| 1 |
Hi everybody, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Finally I'm home from vacation:-) |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
On Tuesday 24 April 2007 09:43, josé Alberto Suárez López wrote: |
| 6 |
> What about 2 trees? core and extras. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> - Core will be maintained by a reduced group of dev and must be quite |
| 9 |
> stable. between releases only will have security updates/bug fixing. |
| 10 |
> This tree must be the minimal necessary to build gnap + some basic |
| 11 |
> tools/servers/packages |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> - Extras will more open and will have more ebuilds, so ever must depend |
| 14 |
> on ebuild on core. |
| 15 |
This is more or less how I already maintain my private GNAP sources. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I have a GNAP base with a minimal Portage snapshot and overlays+specs for |
| 18 |
various other alternatives (Asterisk/Load balancer/MythTV). Unfortunately |
| 19 |
this leaves a lot of duplicates in the spec files. An inheritance/tree based |
| 20 |
approach like profiles would probably cut down on a lot of duplicates. I |
| 21 |
could perhaps just use different profiles and leave the GNAP files more or |
| 22 |
less empty, but a 100% GNAP approach might be better. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I also have Thierry's scripts to make minimal snapshots (with a few fixes of |
| 25 |
my own). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Besides overlays we also need some place to hold stage/portage tarballs. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (Jaervosz) |
Archives