| 1 |
Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:27:54 -0800 |
| 4 |
>> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> Which is offset and more by the massive inconvenience of having to |
| 6 |
>>>> keep track of and store junk under version control. |
| 7 |
>>> I think you're making it out to be worse than it really is. Like I |
| 8 |
>>> said, I think we have a justifiable exception to the rule. |
| 9 |
>> If you start encouraging this approach, are you prepared to make |
| 10 |
>> Portage warn extremely noisily if a repository-provided (as opposed to |
| 11 |
>> user generated) cache entry is found to be stale? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Sure. Otherwise, it's confusing for the user when dependency |
| 14 |
> calculations take longer than usual for no apparent reason. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
It would probably be useful to provide a central rsync infra for |
| 18 |
overlays where overlay maintainers could subscribe their overlays to and |
| 19 |
the machine would pull in their VCS and generate the metadata for them. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Regards, |
| 22 |
Petteri |
Archives