| 1 |
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 00:13:17 -0400 |
| 2 |
Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Thursday 04 September 2003 16:14, Thomas de Grenier de Latour |
| 5 |
> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > I don't see the main difficulty in modifying portage, but rather in |
| 8 |
> > doing the transition <snip> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> nah, if we change the rsync targets ... :) |
| 11 |
> then have the 'next gen' of portage sync against the new target ... |
| 12 |
> old people wouldnt get updates so they'd be encouraged to upgrade |
| 13 |
> their portage and update the rsync target ... |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> i'm not saying that this rsync is the answer ... the point is that it |
| 16 |
> can be done semi-easily ... |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Yes, you're right. Maybe it would also speed up the transition period if |
| 19 |
there was a mechanism to really force people to upgrade their portage |
| 20 |
version when needed. I imagine a "minversion" file in the tree, with a |
| 21 |
version number and an explanation message, and portage would refuse to |
| 22 |
update anything else than himself if its current version is below the |
| 23 |
current required version (and then display the explanation message |
| 24 |
instead). Who know, its an easy to add feature, and it may be useful in |
| 25 |
other situations. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
TGL. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives