| 1 |
On 25 Jul 2004, at 01:56, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> are you suggesting we do this with every new random arch we add that |
| 4 |
> isnt a |
| 5 |
> standard linux port ? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
no |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> seems like an unintuitive workaround |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
it's so far the most clean and simplest solution to a problem, that can |
| 12 |
be removed when portage gets support for the featured integrated. |
| 13 |
I've opened a bug a while ago and described it as 'persistent injected |
| 14 |
packages'. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> why not push something a little more intelligent ... perhaps a new |
| 17 |
> file for |
| 18 |
> portage to utilize in cases like this ... the profile has a special |
| 19 |
> file |
| 20 |
> where you can define packages that are assumed to be satisified |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I won't push, I'll code. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Best regards, |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Pieter Van den Abeele |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> -mike |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> -- |
| 31 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives