1 |
I think that precedent has already been set with linux26-headers |
2 |
unfortunately. |
3 |
|
4 |
-Steve |
5 |
|
6 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
7 |
|
8 |
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:40:20 -0700 Greg KH <gregkh@g.o> wrote: |
9 |
> | > gentoo-sources24 |
10 |
> | > gentoo-sources26 |
11 |
> | |
12 |
> | I don't have a problem with this, but the dependancy stuff might not |
13 |
> | work out properly for some odd kernel-based userspace packages. |
14 |
> | |
15 |
> | Anyone object to this? |
16 |
> |
17 |
> Well, it's pretty nasty... Part of the idea of SLOTs is that we never |
18 |
> need to include version numbers in packages... In fact our docs [1] even |
19 |
> say: |
20 |
> |
21 |
> |
22 |
>>Most distributions and ports systems tend to have a "freetype" package |
23 |
>>for freetype 1.x and "freetype2" for 2.x. We consider this approach a |
24 |
>>sign of a fundamentally broken package management system. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Do we really want to admit that our package manager is broken? |
28 |
> |
29 |
> [1]: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/portage-manual.xml |
30 |
> |
31 |
|
32 |
|
33 |
-- |
34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |