| 1 |
On 06/23/04 Carsten Lohrke wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 4 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> On Tuesday 22 June 2004 23:54, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 7 |
> > Aron Griffis said: |
| 8 |
> > > The only thing I really dislike about the "marked keyword" |
| 9 |
> > > approach is that it requires changes in the *user's* portage |
| 10 |
> > > to |
| 11 |
> > > handle the marking. But only solutions III and IV avoid that so |
| 12 |
> > > far. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > This is really a pretty annoying problem. As far as I can see, it |
| 15 |
> > would require some hacking backwards compatibility fake profiles to |
| 16 |
> > exist at"default-+x86-1.4" and so forth to avoid breaking everyone's |
| 17 |
> > systems with old portages. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Could you explain this, Donnie - please!? I'm not that deep into |
| 20 |
> portage, that I know, what has to be changed in profiles and why it is |
| 21 |
> a that big problem, that they could not be migrated smoothly. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
The problem is much deeper, currently the syntax for KEYWORDS is quite |
| 24 |
strict, any enhancements require portage changes on user systems. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> Just had another thought about the "re-arranging arch" option. How do |
| 27 |
> you implement this in a differend backend, e.g. a database, Aron? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
What do you mean here, a backend for the tree, the cache or what? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Marius |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be |
| 37 |
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. |
Archives