On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 19:57 +0200, Martin Hejl wrote: > Hi kp, > > > (btw: the issue started with DavidMBrookes question, if sources should go > > into > > cvs or not? The discussion drifted away - any ideas on that topic?) > I'd say yes - it will be easier that way to provide a source tarball > (whatever that has to include remains to be seen) if it's decided we > need to, but maybe more importantly, buildtool will not break if the > location of a source changes upstream. As a bonus, it makes it easier to > build things offline - just make a cvs checkout of the whole src path, > and everything needed for building the toolchain and packages is right > there and can be built without internet access. > > I just don't know how happy SF will be, if we put tons of (additional) > binaries in CVS.
Martin, I don't think SF will have a major issue with this change. However, they'd likely prefer we migrate to a SCM that handles binaries better. > As always - just my opinion. Since I'm not contributing to the project > at the moment, I'm obviously in no position to tell anybody what they > should do. -- Mike Noyes <mhnoyes at users.sourceforge.net> http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ SF.net Projects: leaf, sourceforge/sitedocs ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances and start using them to simplify application deployment and accelerate your shift to cloud computing. http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
