| 1 |
On Friday 19 May 2006 08:25, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thursday 18 May 2006 22:37, Stephen Bennett wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Thu, 18 May 2006 21:35:01 +0200 |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Carsten Lohrke <carlo@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > Sure baselayout is. An there're others in the tree, But that doesn't |
| 7 |
> > > mean these variants are supported (special cases like embedded |
| 8 |
> > > aside). |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > So they're unsupported alternatives to one of the core parts of gentoo, |
| 11 |
> > which have profiles for them in the tree. What's different? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> They are at least partly supported. Also they do not aim to replace |
| 14 |
> baselayout as the main gentoo basic setup. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
As someone who's talked to initng devs since their project began and someone |
| 17 |
who has contribed code so that networking worked on init-ng with a Gentoo |
| 18 |
config I can assure you that their goal is to replace baselayout in Gentoo. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
OMFG - lets rip initng from the tree as it's going to replace my lovely |
| 21 |
baselayout</sarcasm> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Roy Marples <uberlord@g.o> |
| 26 |
Gentoo/Linux Developer (baselayout, networking) |
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives