| 1 |
El dom, 29-04-2007 a las 23:33 +0200, Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen |
| 2 |
escribió: |
| 3 |
> Hi everybody, |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Finally I'm home from vacation:-) |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Great :) |
| 8 |
Canarias was nice? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 09:43, josé Alberto Suárez López wrote: |
| 11 |
> > What about 2 trees? core and extras. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > - Core will be maintained by a reduced group of dev and must be quite |
| 14 |
> > stable. between releases only will have security updates/bug fixing. |
| 15 |
> > This tree must be the minimal necessary to build gnap + some basic |
| 16 |
> > tools/servers/packages |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > - Extras will more open and will have more ebuilds, so ever must depend |
| 19 |
> > on ebuild on core. |
| 20 |
> This is more or less how I already maintain my private GNAP sources. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> I have a GNAP base with a minimal Portage snapshot and overlays+specs for |
| 23 |
> various other alternatives (Asterisk/Load balancer/MythTV). Unfortunately |
| 24 |
> this leaves a lot of duplicates in the spec files. An inheritance/tree based |
| 25 |
> approach like profiles would probably cut down on a lot of duplicates. I |
| 26 |
> could perhaps just use different profiles and leave the GNAP files more or |
| 27 |
> less empty, but a 100% GNAP approach might be better. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> I also have Thierry's scripts to make minimal snapshots (with a few fixes of |
| 30 |
> my own). |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
So want you to do this :) |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> Besides overlays we also need some place to hold stage/portage tarballs. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
We also need a place to mirror all files required by gnap-overlay. SO |
| 37 |
i'm waiting a reply from gentoo-infra :) |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gnap-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives