| 1 |
On Thursday 18 May 2006 20:35, Carsten Lohrke wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thursday 18 May 2006 20:43, Roy Marples wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Yes, part of it. baselayout is another part - and yet it's possible to |
| 4 |
> > run Gentoo on other variants like initng, daemontools and no doubt |
| 5 |
> > others. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Sure baselayout is. An there're others in the tree, But that doesn't mean |
| 8 |
> these variants are supported (special cases like embedded aside). |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Why make a special case for embedded? |
| 11 |
Maybe you haven't noticed, but baselayout is a virtual - which does make |
| 12 |
things harder as the main "forks" (vserver and fbsd) sometimes break when we |
| 13 |
add new things and they haven't synced up yet. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
But that's OK as they're supported I guess. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Or are you saying that spb, other devs and people outside of Gentoo who has |
| 18 |
submitted SoC applications about Paludis (or what that qaludis?) are just |
| 19 |
going to wack it into the tree and then say "we're not going to support it"? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Of course not! |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
If az, vapier and myself upped and left Gentoo, would you rip out baselayout |
| 24 |
in favour of something else as there's no-one to support it? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Roy Marples <uberlord@g.o> |
| 28 |
Gentoo/Linux Developer (baselayout, networking) |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives