| 1 |
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 11:49:03 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 12:45:16 +0200 |
| 5 |
> "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > And yes, it is *very* unlikely that someone uses a slotted live |
| 7 |
> > > ebuild with two branches being meaningful and managed in the same |
| 8 |
> > > repo. Even if such thing exists, it is broken anyway because you |
| 9 |
> > > can't say that re-fetching the branches back and forth is a |
| 10 |
> > > correct solution. And it breaks existing tools anyway. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > This is done large-scale for all KDE ebuilds (in the KDE overlay) to |
| 13 |
> > support master and KDE/4.x stable branch. Most use git, so no |
| 14 |
> > problem; some (still) use subversion but will be migrated upstream |
| 15 |
> > soon(?). |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > Other examples are libreoffice (main tree, git) and cups (main |
| 18 |
> > tree, subversion). |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> I guess that's a pretty comprehensive "we need to do this properly" |
| 21 |
> then. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Did I say we don't need to? We have the two eclasses which need to do |
| 24 |
this properly, right? So what's your problem? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Best regards, |
| 28 |
Michał Górny |
Archives