1 |
On Tue January 06 2004 10:02 am, Eldad Zack wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 19:56, Eldad Zack wrote: |
3 |
> > On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 14:33, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
4 |
> > > I'm sorry for that. It however can be a sign that the tree is not ready |
5 |
> > > for those ebuilds, or that they are in very low demand. |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > Perhaps we can create some sort of repository for these kind of ebuilds, |
8 |
> > as an outlet for the low-demand ebuilds, where a user could search for |
9 |
> > an ebuild, and not reinvent the wheel, if a package he'd like to install |
10 |
> > falls under this category. |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > Searching bugzilla would yield the same results, I assume, but it's |
13 |
> > seems to me somewhat less inviting. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> I Just noticed breakmygentoo. maybe a link with a disclaimer from |
16 |
> gentoo.org would come in handy? |
17 |
|
18 |
I too found and looked at breakmygentoo.net and it appears not to be much |
19 |
different than just downloading ebuilds out of bugs.gentoo.org. Kinda takes |
20 |
the joys of portage out of the picture. Seems just a lot more presentable |
21 |
than bugs.gentoo.org and a better location for those ebuilds. Still not sure |
22 |
why the dev release of gnome 2.5.x has to be there while KDE 3.2 beta is in |
23 |
the tree just masked. Seems odd. I'm a KDE person so it really doesn't matter |
24 |
other than just for understanding. |
25 |
|
26 |
Someone in this thread said that ACCEPT_KEYWORDS isn't for unstable |
27 |
ebuilds/packages. If that's the case we don't need ACCEPT_KEYWORDS do we? I |
28 |
must have it wrong that things go from masked to ACCEPT_KEYWORDS to the |
29 |
stable tree route. I'll do more reading and educate myself as to what |
30 |
ACCEPT_KEYWORDS is for and why apps are flagged that way. |
31 |
|
32 |
Robert |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |