Archives
Archives
| From: | Mike Myers <fluffymikey@×××××.com> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-user@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-user] Re: anti-portage wreckage? | ||
| Date: | Mon, 01 Jan 2007 01:07:18 | ||
| Message-Id: | 89646b4a0612311701q5b705e09n425c9c8e5a01a4c9@mail.gmail.com | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-user] Re: anti-portage wreckage? by Mike Myers |
||
| 1 | I just wanted to add something to the original post. |
| 2 | |
| 3 | I've recently began experimenting with Debian and noticed their updating |
| 4 | system is exactly like what I was asking about. Basically, there's package |
| 5 | updates, and then there's distro updates. Why is it unreasonable for Gentoo |
| 6 | to have something like this? I think it would help Gentoo a lot in the |
| 7 | server market, where scalability is important. |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-user] Re: anti-portage wreckage? | Mark Kirkwood <markir@××××××××××××.nz> |
| Re: [gentoo-user] Re: anti-portage wreckage? | Neil Walker <neil@×××××××.nu> |
| Re: [gentoo-user] Re: anti-portage wreckage? | William Kenworthy <billk@×××××××××.au> |
| Re: [gentoo-user] Re: anti-portage wreckage? | Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> |