On 5/12/06, Hisham Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/13/06, Carlo Calica <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Isn't it falling back to Fibo by default? I thought SandboxInstall did
that. Unless the Fibo user is not being correctly set up in the chroot
environment, or Directories.conf is disabling the sandbox.
No, it is just failing in UnionSandbox.
Sure. Speaking of pending development matters, you mentioned importing
the recipe store into CVS a while ago. Any plans in that direction? I
think a simple copy of the recipe tree would be simple enough to be
workable.
Yeah. I got side tracked. I'm planning on importing
"RecipeBook/{Core,Extras}". I see focussing on Core first for 013.
Then add the remainder to Extras.
I think main thing we're missing now is proper support for
revisions. A question: does having different revision numbers for
recipes and binary packages make sense? If the build environment is
"fully deterministic" (ie, strict BuildDependencies in a recipe down
to the version of the compiler used), I would say "no". Don't know if
we want that, though. Maybe it's the case to have something like:
Foo--1.0-r3--recipe.tar.bz2 and Foo--1.0-r3p2--i686.tar.bz2. Does that
make sense?
I say different rev numbers does not make sense. The build
environment should be "fully deterministic". What's the difference
between r3p1 and r3p2? Is there anyway to know?
I'll be out of town till Wednesday at a conference. André told me he's
visiting Lucas this weekend, so hopefully we'll see further progress
on the ISO *hint*hint* ;)
--
Carlo J. Calica
_______________________________________________
gobolinux-devel mailing list
gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org
http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
