| 1 |
We could implement some kind of ebuild-link then? 'inherit app-editors/jedit'? |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Thursday 04 September 2003 10:09 pm, Grant Goodyear wrote: |
| 4 |
> On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 16:52, Jean Jordaan wrote: |
| 5 |
> > >> but how about make more than 2 |
| 6 |
> > >> levels in portage, as in OpenBSD's ports tree ? |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > My personal feeling is that many packages don't belong in only one |
| 9 |
> > category. E.g. in portage currently: |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > * app-text/yudit |
| 12 |
> > Description: free (Y)unicode text editor for all unices |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > * app-editors/jedit |
| 15 |
> > Description: Programmer's editor written in Java |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > Both make sense, and app-editors/yudit & app-editors/yudit would |
| 18 |
> > also make sense. Instead of categories, ebuilds should have a |
| 19 |
> > CATEGORY variable. E.g. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Portage support would be required to support deeper trees. The problem |
| 22 |
> with symlinks is that we use CVS for our portage tree, which doesn't |
| 23 |
> support symlinks (or graceful renaming, or ...); unfortunately, it's the |
| 24 |
> best game in town for us right now. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> I agree w/ Vapier on this one. The short-term fix should be fine, and |
| 27 |
> I, too, would like to see support for a more heirarchical portage tree |
| 28 |
> in a future version of portage. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> -g2boojum- |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Luke-Jr |
| 34 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux |
| 35 |
http://www.gentoo.org/ |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives