Gentoo Archives: gentoo-ppc-dev

From: Owen Stampflee <owen@××××××××××.org>
To: gentooppc-dev@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentooppc-dev] ARCH=ppc in unified portage and some downfalls
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 21:28:08
Message-Id: 1023650982.3383.9.camel@whitefusion.lan
In Reply to: [gentooppc-dev] ARCH=ppc in unified portage and some downfalls by Mark Guertin
Well, as I have said in IRC, I believe that creating a new rsync tree
would fix things for the moment. We could always have a testing tree for
those who want to use err test, err blow up their systems with the
latest packages.

Debian does it this way, keeping all the different archs seperate. With
a binary packaging method it has to be done this way so why isnt this
done when the packages are in source form? This would solve little
problems such as xforms and we could also fix other little things which
say they require nasm but don't really need it.

In the future it would be great if portage could do this automagically.
It could look at the arch and then pull from the correct tree.

Owen

-- 
Owen Stampflee - owen@××××××××××.org
http://penguinppc.org/~owen

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentooppc-dev] ARCH=ppc in unified portage and some downfalls Pieter Van den Abeele <pvdabeel@g.o>