| 1 |
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 09:26:06AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
> While I agree that we shouldn't make a linux26-sources, I think that |
| 3 |
> making a linux24-sources would not be a problem. The reason for this is |
| 4 |
> that the 2.4 version will always be a 2.4 version, whereas the 2.6 |
| 5 |
> versions, *are* what kernel.org considers to be "vanilla" sources. Why |
| 6 |
> don't we? This was kinda my reason for bringing up a Gentoo-wide switch |
| 7 |
> to 2.6 as the "default" kernels in the near (February) future. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
This is still using version numbers in package names. I do not think we |
| 10 |
should take this approach. Aside from modifying portage a little, I liked |
| 11 |
the "legacy-sources" approach the best. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
-Cory |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
-- |
| 16 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives