On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 01:15 +0100, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
* Roman Shaposhnik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Besides the fact that I'm not making binary packages at all,
splitted / small sources make packaging a lot easier.
So let me get this straight: you're trying to solve a problem
[I believe we should go off-line if you're interested in continuing this
discussion, since it has very little to do with plan9port at this point.
I'll reply to the portion that has relevance on the list here, and will
reply to the rest of your email privately]
On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 01:15 +0100,
* Roman V. Shaposhnik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 19:07 +0100, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
Hi folks,
I'd like to vote against feeding up p9p with more things,
instead split it up into smaller pieces. Modern distros tend
to have quite convenient package management
On Nov 1, 2008, at 12:05 PM, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
I really fail to see what is your problem here. There's no
rule that source code repository has to correspond 1-1
to the binary package. In fact, it is quite common
to use a single repository for producing a number of
different binary packages.
Hi folks,
I'd like to vote against feeding up p9p with more things,
instead split it up into smaller pieces. Modern distros tend
to have quite convenient package management systems ;-p
I've did a few steps in this direction (but due lack of time
not finished yet :().
cu
--
On Sat, 2008-10-18 at 10:20 -0700, Russ Cox wrote:
Hence the question -- would you be in favor
of continue adding things as needed. And
if so, what kind of of groundwork would
you expect from the contributors?
Usually it is as simple as adding it to your own tree,
adapting the mkfile,
Hence the question -- would you be in favor
of continue adding things as needed. And
if so, what kind of of groundwork would
you expect from the contributors?
Usually it is as simple as adding it to your own tree,
adapting the mkfile, and making it build.
U9fs is somewhat special since it is
somehow it dawned on me that plan9port lacks
an application to serve a local filesystem
over 9P. Is this on purpose? Am I missing
something fundamental that would allow
for a moral equivalent of exportfs?
I pull things in as they are needed.
I have not needed to serve 9P.
Adding u9fs sounds
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 12:24 AM, Russ Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
somehow it dawned on me that plan9port lacks
an application to serve a local filesystem
over 9P. Is this on purpose?
I pull things in as they are needed.
I have not needed to serve 9P.
This reminds
Hi Russ!
First of all -- thanks a lot for answering.
On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 09:24 -0700, Russ Cox wrote:
somehow it dawned on me that plan9port lacks
an application to serve a local filesystem
over 9P. Is this on purpose? Am I missing
something fundamental that would allow
for a moral
Guys,
somehow it dawned on me that plan9port lacks
an application to serve a local filesystem
over 9P. Is this on purpose? Am I missing
something fundamental that would allow
for a moral equivalent of exportfs?
The best I could come up with was to possibly
use u9fs, but that begs a question --
11 matches
Mail list logo
