| 1 |
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:25:51 -0400 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Brian Dolbec <dolsen@g.o> |
| 5 |
> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > It does not other the the metadata.dtd file it checks for updates |
| 8 |
> > and updates itself with. But that is very likely to change with the |
| 9 |
> > rewrite I have in progress (albeit slowly). I have also seriously |
| 10 |
> > been contemplating splitting off it's release from the main portage |
| 11 |
> > package. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Now I remember the conversations. Having repoman rules at the |
| 15 |
> repository level, local system level, and a few others (I forget where |
| 16 |
> the thread was). Overlays can have their own rules, and so on. It |
| 17 |
> doesn't make sense to update portage every time there is a new QA |
| 18 |
> policy. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
EXACTLY! |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
There will still need to be occasional releases due to the need for |
| 24 |
additional or changed code. But for trivial changes like deprecating |
| 25 |
an EAPI or adding a new eclass,... That is all data it can easily |
| 26 |
download or even get within the git/rsync tree. Then just iterate over |
| 27 |
the various entries. There will be no need for a new release. |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Brian Dolbec <dolsen> |
Archives