| 1 |
On Mon, 2004-01-19 at 16:18, John Nilsson wrote: |
| 2 |
> > If you've ever used cvs, which we do for our portage tree, you will know |
| 3 |
> > that moving packages is far more painful than the "no effort" you suppose. |
| 4 |
> > Due to the number of packages that make up XFCE, suggesting such a large |
| 5 |
> > move |
| 6 |
> > would not be taken lightly. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Is there any particular feature in cvs that subversion could not provide? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Tseng's initial statement is a bit misleading, it has nothing to do with |
| 11 |
cvs. It's a move that can and should be handled by portage, but it's |
| 12 |
still tedious. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I personally do agree though that this (XFCE4) naming convention has |
| 15 |
been wrong from the start and have brought it up before on IRC. Gentoo, |
| 16 |
unlike some binary based distros, has no reason to use version numbers |
| 17 |
in package names because of the SLOTs system and we should make as |
| 18 |
extensive use of this as possible. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
That doesn't change the fact that this is a lot of work and it's up to |
| 21 |
the maintainers to find time to do this. It has no immediate importance, |
| 22 |
but it should be on their TODO. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
- foser |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives