| 1 |
On Thu, 2004-05-20 at 23:06, Joseph Booker wrote: |
| 2 |
> John Nilsson said: |
| 3 |
> > I feel that we should try to move away from the monolithic nature of the |
| 4 |
> > portage tree and try to harness the power of "the web" more. To do that |
| 5 |
> > we have to push as much of the package handling as possible upstream. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Many handle it upstream, i can think of perl and oo.o off the top of my |
| 8 |
> head, but do you want to go through their customizing ways (aka, the |
| 9 |
> ./configure script) and lose portage's ablity to be run non-interactivly? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I would be fine with something like the kernels "make oldconfig" each |
| 14 |
emerge instance. |
| 15 |
That would be just as "non-interactive" as: |
| 16 |
emerge -uUD world -pv && vim /etc/make.conf && vim /etc/portage/* && |
| 17 |
emerge -uUD world. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-john |
Archives