| 1 |
Solar, |
| 2 |
I realize you meant this as a general statement of opinion and not a |
| 3 |
flame-baiter, but can you elaborate on: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
On Sunday 05 June 2005 11:37, Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 6 |
> Invalidates binary package trees. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
My (wrong?) understanding was that this is addressed when portage runs a |
| 9 |
fixpackages (otherwise what's it doing to all those binary packages?). I ask |
| 10 |
because its no secret that I'm working on a split up of dev-perl from the |
| 11 |
500+ packages to a better organized, reasonable scenario where packages are |
| 12 |
categorized based on, well, category :) rather than on the fact that they |
| 13 |
"contain some perl bits or module bits, stuff them in dev-perl". |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Just curious, it's not my intent to hurt anyone's trees along the way :) |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
-mike |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives