1 |
On Thursday, April 24, 2003, at 04:50 am, George Shapovalov wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Wednesday 23 April 2003 17:32, Stroller wrote: |
4 |
>> On Tuesday, April 22, 2003, at 02:17 pm, Peter Ruskin wrote: |
5 |
>>> On Tuesday 22 Apr 2003 13:59, Frantz Dhin wrote: |
6 |
>>>> ... maybe we could make a |
7 |
>>>> new keyword? x86 for stable, ~x86 for unstable, and ^x86 for |
8 |
>>>> lunatic? |
9 |
>>> I couldn't agree more! |
10 |
>> Me, either! I don't know that "lunatic" is the best word, but it |
11 |
>> seems to me that an additional hierarchy [0] allows for a framework |
12 |
>> more flexible & extensible for end lusers. As I understand it builds |
13 |
>> with the |
14 |
> Unfortunately this is not that easy. Just accepting ebuild in and |
15 |
> letting them |
16 |
> rot is either a dead-end or a security breach (or both :). |
17 |
.... |
18 |
> Please take a look at #1523 to see what's on the plate ;). |
19 |
>> [1] Am I correctly abbreviating "^86, ^ppc or whatever" here? |
20 |
|
21 |
Yeah, sorry. I'm clearly not qualified to comment. I decided to make my |
22 |
reply before reading others about multiple rsync servers &c. My main |
23 |
reason for posting was to object to the suggestion of naming a USE flag |
24 |
after a hypothetical Honda. |
25 |
|
26 |
I haven't had the chance to read your full proposal yet, but just the |
27 |
title of "Distributed ebuild processing system" sounds inspiring - I |
28 |
look forward to giving it my full attention, and eventually to seeing |
29 |
the results. |
30 |
|
31 |
Stroller. |
32 |
|
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
Enjoyed this post? Thanks for reading - Give me a job! |
36 |
Technical support / system administration |
37 |
Linux / Unix / Windows / Mac OS X - UK or anywhere considered |
38 |
|
39 |
|
40 |
|
41 |
-- |
42 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |