Archives
Archives
| From: | Eric Sammer <esammer@g.o> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-server@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-server] requirements for a more stable portage tree | ||
| Date: | Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:12:18 | ||
| Message-Id: | 402B5176.2030902@gentoo.org | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-server] requirements for a more stable portage tree by Andrew Cowie |
||
| 1 | Andrew Cowie wrote: |
| 2 | > Tell me again why such ebuilds can't be maintained in existing portage - |
| 3 | > all we have to do is *not* remove them from the tree so fast, no? |
| 4 | |
| 5 | No. Even if you don't remove old ebuilds, you still have the other end |
| 6 | of the stick where new updates are being released too fast for |
| 7 | "enterprises." |
| 8 | |
| 9 | -- |
| 10 | Eric Sammer |
| 11 | Gentoo Linux |
| 12 | http://www.gentoo.org |
| File name | MIME type |
|---|---|
| signature.asc | application/pgp-signature |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-server] requirements for a more stable portage tree | Andrew Cowie <andrew@×××××××××××××××××××.com> |