| 1 |
On Thursday 04 September 2003 16:14, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 21:45:30 +0200 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Camille Huot <cam@××××××.net> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > sounds nice. I think there is some work to be done to portage to get |
| 6 |
> > this working. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I don't see the main difficulty in modifying portage, but rather in |
| 9 |
> doing the transition to the new tree without breaking backward |
| 10 |
> compatibility with old installed portage versions. There are some |
| 11 |
> people, especialy those who run gentoo on production servers, who don't |
| 12 |
> do their weekly deep update :/ |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
nah, if we change the rsync targets ... :) |
| 15 |
then have the 'next gen' of portage sync against the new target ... old people |
| 16 |
wouldnt get updates so they'd be encouraged to upgrade their portage and |
| 17 |
update the rsync target ... |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
i'm not saying that this rsync is the answer ... the point is that it can be |
| 20 |
done semi-easily ... |
| 21 |
-mike |
Archives