| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Robert Cernansky wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:51:46 -0700 Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>> Robert Cernansky wrote: |
| 8 |
>>> If I have some application that is not included in portage why |
| 9 |
>>> I decide to make an ebuild? Because I hope that then it will be |
| 10 |
>>> accepted and included to portage, so maintained by developers (big |
| 11 |
>>> thanks for this). If I have to take care of package + ebuild + |
| 12 |
>>> dependencies, I'll rather choose not to make an ebulid but compile |
| 13 |
>>> package right from .tar.gz archive. |
| 14 |
>> Many people disagree with you here, that's why overlays |
| 15 |
>> exist. Somebody wants to use Portage to manage ebuilds that aren't |
| 16 |
>> yet in the actual tree. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Yes, it have sense for a larger set of packages (maybe) with |
| 19 |
> complicated depenencies. But I'm talking about few single packages. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
An ebuild offer several advantages even for tiny packages. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
- -- |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Luis F. Araujo "araujo at gentoo.org" |
| 28 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 32 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (GNU/Linux) |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
iD8DBQFEymTtdZ42PGEF17URAnCRAJ0VD++qAN6/ivZAsaMFvdbuibelJwCfSus1 |
| 35 |
H9CeyZgw3G36Mfedej1hOrU= |
| 36 |
=rPeN |
| 37 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives