From: | Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> | ||
---|---|---|---|
To: | gentoo-dev@l.g.o | ||
Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] proxy-dev (an alternative to sunrise?) | ||
Date: | Fri, 28 Jul 2006 18:56:40 | ||
Message-Id: | 44CA5CC2.5000404@gentoo.org | ||
In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-dev] proxy-dev (an alternative to sunrise?) by Robert Cernansky |
1 | Robert Cernansky wrote: |
2 | > If I have some application that is not included in portage why |
3 | > I decide to make an ebuild? Because I hope that then it will be |
4 | > accepted and included to portage, so maintained by developers (big |
5 | > thanks for this). If I have to take care of package + ebuild + |
6 | > dependencies, I'll rather choose not to make an ebulid but compile |
7 | > package right from .tar.gz archive. |
8 | |
9 | Many people disagree with you here, that's why overlays exist. Somebody |
10 | wants to use Portage to manage ebuilds that aren't yet in the actual tree. |
11 | |
12 | Thanks, |
13 | Donnie |
File name | MIME type |
---|---|
signature.asc | application/pgp-signature |
Subject | Author |
---|---|
Re: [gentoo-dev] proxy-dev (an alternative to sunrise?) | Robert Cernansky <hslists2@××××××.sk> |
Re: [gentoo-dev] proxy-dev (an alternative to sunrise?) | Alastair Tse <liquidx@g.o> |
Re: [gentoo-dev] proxy-dev (an alternative to sunrise?) | Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> |