| 1 |
On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:04:55 +0800 |
| 2 |
Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 15 March 2015 at 06:34, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@g.o> |
| 5 |
> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > imho, |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> >> Questions: |
| 9 |
> >> 0. What names for the tree/repository. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > "gentoo" |
| 12 |
> > (it's also the repo_name) |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Our repo is already named "gentoo", so this makes the most sense. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> But I wouldn't mind "gentoo-main" either. But then we should also |
| 17 |
> change the repo_name. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> While we are at it, can we change the default location from |
| 20 |
> /usr/portage to something like /var/repos/${repo_name} then? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
The hold up for that was catalyst which had /usr/portage hardcoded all |
| 24 |
over the place. Not only that, but the hard-coded path was also used |
| 25 |
as both a variable name and path at the same time. :( |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I have nearly all the 3.0 rewrite branch merged into master finally. |
| 28 |
I'll begin some testing again soon to make sure it works properly with |
| 29 |
the "gentoo" repo relocated. It shouldn't be long to have a new |
| 30 |
release based on the 3.0 re-write making stages for release. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Brian Dolbec <dolsen> |
Archives