| 1 |
On Sun, 2004-08-01 at 07:41, Spider wrote: |
| 2 |
> begin quote |
| 3 |
> On 01 Aug 2004 06:30:47 -0400 |
| 4 |
> Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Great... no objections! Next step is to having somebody make an |
| 8 |
> > announcement in the GWN so that those of you using a $BINHOST that |
| 9 |
> > missed this thread will expect this change coming as it's a profile |
| 10 |
> > change. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Okay, as one of the binary repo maintainers I'm all for this as it |
| 14 |
> simplifies it further for me, currently we do binhost/arch/All.. . for |
| 15 |
> exports, And this will cut down some on it.. or add to it.. :P |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> ah. well. I trust the portage devs will take care of informing us on the |
| 18 |
> new bright path and then leave it alone as "binary stable" for a year or |
| 19 |
> two. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I was instructed by portage devs to inform you/gwn/users of the proposed |
| 22 |
change. (give/take time to pan it out) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Sweet this will indeed help you. We can for example take the case of x86 |
| 25 |
on x86 we support x86:glibc x86:uclibc x86:obsd. That's 3 full different |
| 26 |
USERLANDS all of which we can could in theory provide binary packages |
| 27 |
under the same ARCH but for which all have unique CHOSTS. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> //Spider |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |
| 34 |
Gentoo (hardened,security,infrastructure,embedded,toolchain) Developer |
Archives