| 1 |
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 12:15:00AM +0000, Luke-Jr wrote: |
| 2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 3 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> On Friday 03 October 2003 11:58 pm, Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 6 |
> > I would be quite violently opposed to removing kernel sources entirely from |
| 7 |
> > portage. genkernel may be nice as an option for users who wish it. Do not |
| 8 |
> > force me to use it, however. |
| 9 |
> Is there any reason the Linux sources need to be included as an ebuild any |
| 10 |
> more than, for example, the sources for Portage or Apache? You could always |
| 11 |
> use ebuild to unpack into /var/tmp/portage and do the compile step yourself. |
| 12 |
> However, I do think it would be a good idea to have some way of installing the |
| 13 |
> source for any ebuild into /usr/src. Maybe Portage can check and if the |
| 14 |
> package name ends with -src, it trims it, only does an unpack and merges the |
| 15 |
> - -src to /usr/src/ebuildname or something? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Yes. Because what you're suggesting is basically just to make genkernel |
| 18 |
default behavior - when the install guide already suggests using it. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
You're not suggesting anything that provides a tangible benefit, you're |
| 21 |
just suggesting expanding our tree to do something we already do. That |
| 22 |
doesn't make sense. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Jon Portnoy |
| 26 |
avenj/irc.freenode.net |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives