| 1 |
It's happening that we seem to have a bunch of crybabies in Gentoo |
| 2 |
that don't get along together and instead of figuring out their |
| 3 |
differences are going to screw up users even more. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Bunch of chipmunks in our ranks as well I suppose. |
| 6 |
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes |
| 7 |
flameeyes@×××××××××.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 11 |
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 3:43 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 12 |
>> I am sending this out for review so we can commit it to the tree |
| 13 |
>> when we commit our alternate systemd ebuild in a few days. This will be |
| 14 |
>> set up so that users can choose which systemd package they want to |
| 15 |
>> install, and it will default to the current systemd package. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Did I miss some kind of announcement for what is going on here? An |
| 18 |
> additional implementation in portage along with an eclass probably is |
| 19 |
> worth some kind of intro on-list. I don't think you need to seek |
| 20 |
> approval/etc, but it would be nice to know what your goals/etc are. |
| 21 |
> Is this just a different installation/configuration approach, or is |
| 22 |
> this some kind of upstream fork? |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Rich |
| 25 |
> |
Archives