| 1 |
On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 14:12, C. Brewer wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 05:54:09 -0400 |
| 3 |
> Brad Laue <brad@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > Many ebuilds do this; if a USE flag enables a feature with which another |
| 6 |
> > feature conflicts, the other feature must be disabled to compensate - |
| 7 |
> > shouldn't be much of a logistical problem. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Rather than use flags against the gentoo-sources...why not use flags against |
| 10 |
> the appropriate vanilla versions? Should clear up the tree a bunch, and then |
| 11 |
> you could have - |
| 12 |
> vanilla-sources (with use wolk,xfs,ck,etc) |
| 13 |
> dev-sources (with use mm,whatever) |
| 14 |
> gentoo-sources |
| 15 |
> ppc-sources |
| 16 |
> other-sources.. |
| 17 |
> I know it'd be a bunch of work to change em over, but it'd leave the |
| 18 |
> gentoo-sources from getting clashed and should be easier to keep track of |
| 19 |
> one ebuild with different useflags than fifteen ebuilds..or it could be time |
| 20 |
> for my medication again:) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
A problem is that people who release kernel patches do not do so at the |
| 23 |
same time (e.g. Con Kolivas's second patchset for 2.4.22 is not released |
| 24 |
at the same time as Alan Cox's third patchset for 2.4.22 etc etc, so the |
| 25 |
version numbers would not work out properly for third-party patchsets, |
| 26 |
and people wouldn't know when upgrades were available. |
Archives