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) |