Grant,
Apologies; I can't find your note from yesterday, so I can't respond
to the correct topic.
One question just occurred to me; if it's been addressed before,
apologies about that, too. Your requirement that any alternative
package manager support any ebuild which portage supports seems
On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 16:17:06 +
Ferris McCormick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about ebuilds which for
whatever reason are invalid (serious specification violation, for
example, to the extent that QA would reject them), but portage accepts
them anyway. Must the alternative accept them as
On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 16:17:06 +
Ferris McCormick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Grant,
Apologies; I can't find your note from yesterday, so I can't respond
to the correct topic.
One question just occurred to me; if it's been addressed before,
apologies about that, too. Your requirement
On Friday 02 June 2006 18:47, Marius Mauch wrote:
Actually this is probably the main problem of all the package manager
compability gleps: We don't have a proper specification, all existing
docs more or less are based on the existing portage implementation. So
right now the implementation is
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 19:48:39 +0200
Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is actually that such a document is a living thing and it
must not only exist initially but be maintained continuously.
Must it? I'd be more inclined to say that if it needs to change, a new
specification
Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 19:48:39 +0200
Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is actually that such a document is a living thing and it
must not only exist initially but be maintained continuously.
Must it? I'd be more inclined to say that if it needs to
On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 19:48 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
On Friday 02 June 2006 18:47, Marius Mauch wrote:
Actually this is probably the main problem of all the package manager
compability gleps: We don't have a proper specification, all existing
docs more or less are based on the existing
