| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Saturday 04 October 2003 01:33 pm, Stroller wrote: |
| 5 |
> Please can we keep things simple..? Gentoo is such a great |
| 6 |
> distribution, complexity has the potential to diminish it from its |
| 7 |
> current (IMO) near perfection. Surely there are far better things for |
| 8 |
> inclusion in Portage3. Iis there any timeframe on that, BTW..? |
| 9 |
We already recommend using genkernel in the manual for 1.4, so moving this |
| 10 |
into an ebuild wouldn't be very different from how it is now. Personally, I |
| 11 |
am satisfied with how the kernels are done right now, but I brought it up |
| 12 |
because it sounds like a feature that could be useful on some systems or by |
| 13 |
some people and it would fit more in with the current Portage setup where |
| 14 |
everything is automaticly compiled. Though I would like to see the -src |
| 15 |
suffix get in at some point even if the kernels stay the same. I keep /var/ |
| 16 |
tmp/portage, but sometimes it might be nice to have the sources in /usr/src |
| 17 |
too. I don't think Portage3 would be neccesary for this... It could probably |
| 18 |
be a few well placed lines in the current Portage to add it, though I suppose |
| 19 |
I would say the same for sticky USE flags. Can a Portage dev comment on how |
| 20 |
complex/simple it would be to implement -src? |
| 21 |
- -- |
| 22 |
Luke-Jr |
| 23 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux |
| 24 |
http://www.gentoo.org/ |
| 25 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 26 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
iD8DBQE/ftXRZl/BHdU+lYMRAv9oAJ99Z52pq+O8ydq1YCTnE6kLVu9J6gCfX208 |
| 29 |
XDTxmDFfoBlBpNrN9yFn6uQ= |
| 30 |
=a+lg |
| 31 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives