| 1 |
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 06:05:30 -0700 |
| 2 |
Mark Knecht wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 7/2/06, Nick Rout <nick@×××××××.nz> wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > If it is so stable and you have it on 5 machines then why are you |
| 8 |
> > wanting to install it again? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I don't. I just don't want messages about things being installed for |
| 11 |
> which there is no atom, or whatever the message is. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Then follow the advice given and add it to an overlay |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> More importantly (to me) is that when looking at a distro like this |
| 17 |
> what are the issues with leaving an older revision in portage? I |
| 18 |
> don't see what the maintainance issues are. It's been a working ebuild |
| 19 |
> for a long time. Why remove it. Just leave it there. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
How far back should it go? Should we leave beta versions of firefox in |
| 22 |
portage? How about kde 1? How bloody big do you want the portage tree to |
| 23 |
be? How about when some dependency is no longer compatible with myth |
| 24 |
0.18 ? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
>I suppose files |
| 28 |
> could move and then the ebuild would need an update |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Volunteering are you? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
>but other than |
| 33 |
> that how much work is being saved for one person vs. a decision by |
| 34 |
> that one person to force lots of people to upgrade? (All |
| 35 |
> rhetorical....) |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> - Mark |
| 38 |
> -- |
| 39 |
> gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
Nick Rout <nick@×××××××.nz> |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
-- |
| 45 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives