On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 12:27 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 12:25:03PM -0400, Kristian Benoit wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 15:39 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
> > > That and help would always be welcome :P
> >
> > Then where do I find the code (I'm an official dev yet, so I
Lot of text left inline, pardon, just scroll and deal with it :P
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 12:28:08PM -0400, Kristian Benoit wrote:
> Here is my recent communication with Pieter:
>
> On Sat, 2005-08-13 at 21:59 +0200, Pieter Van den Abeele wrote:
> > On 13 Aug 2005, at 19:16, Kristian Benoit wrote
On 08/23/05 Ricardo Loureiro wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 21:41:35 +0100
> Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > portage-ng is dead. There is a rewrite going on, but it'll take a
> > while
> > to get anywhere near usable.
>
> I searched a bit to find information about portage-ng but
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 12:25:03PM -0400, Kristian Benoit wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 15:39 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
> > That and help would always be welcome :P
>
> Then where do I find the code (I'm an official dev yet, so I only have
> access to what's in the mirrors and the patchs on mai
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 12:25:03PM -0400, Kristian Benoit wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 15:39 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
> > That and help would always be welcome :P
>
> Then where do I find the code (I'm an official dev yet, so I only have
> access to what's in the mirrors and the patchs on mai
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:39:10 -0500
Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The 2.1 code that was pushed out for inspection addresses the cache
> issue mostly, and modularization as much as possible. Everything
> else
> falls to the rewrite which is underway- I'd suggest contacting
> portage
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 21:41:35 +0100
Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> portage-ng is dead. There is a rewrite going on, but it'll take a
> while
> to get anywhere near usable.
I searched a bit to find information about portage-ng but the only
doc I found was Daniel's pdf with just a draw
On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 21:41 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:49:14 -0400
> Kristian Benoit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I do agree with that, portage probably need a rewrite/better
> > modularization anyway. There is/was a project called portage-ng () you
> > might want t
On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 15:39 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
> That and help would always be welcome :P
Then where do I find the code (I'm an official dev yet, so I only have
access to what's in the mirrors and the patchs on mailing lists)
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 01:49:14PM -0400, Kristian Benoit wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 16:38 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
>
> > Anyway, I hope you realize that your project doesn't only involve
> > hacking on portage, but rewriting almost all of it for the client part.
> > Actually I'd rather sugg
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:49:14 -0400
Kristian Benoit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do agree with that, portage probably need a rewrite/better
> modularization anyway. There is/was a project called portage-ng () you
> might want to have a look at. I did a little in that direction
> recently, and it
On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 16:38 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Anyway, I hope you realize that your project doesn't only involve
> hacking on portage, but rewriting almost all of it for the client part.
> Actually I'd rather suggest you start from scratch
I do agree with that, portage probably need a r
Ricardo Loureiro wrote:
Usable in the way that the client machines should be able to use
portage, except it's the hacked (or new package) version that should
do everything from the SQL server. For example, a emerge package
would behave in 2 possible ways;1- calculate it's dependencies from
the
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:38:11 +0200
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Define "usable". As only portage uses the tree it would be the only
> thing that might break.
Usable in the way that the client machines should be able to use
portage, except it's the hacked (or new package) version that
On 08/22/05 Ricardo Loureiro wrote:
> 1- Can I RSYNC_EXCLUDE everything except profiles and have an usable
> system?
Define "usable". As only portage uses the tree it would be the only
thing that might break.
> 2- There was a portagesql effort, is it dead?
As far as I know, yes. But it wasn't
On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 20:34 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> | The final result of the project will be released to the community
> | (GPL or BSD, still need to think), so I'd love to ear from users
> | dealing with this kind of scenario, question, comments, whatever you
> | think I should focus on.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ricardo Loureiro wrote:
| As part of the final project for my graduation in Informatics
| Engineering (kinda Computer Science but that's the official name),
| I'm gonna develop a "distributed" portage so we can have a test
| lab at our uni with Gentoo
Ricardo Loureiro wrote:
Some questions:
1- Can I RSYNC_EXCLUDE everything except profiles and have an usable
system?
Depending on exactly how you're doing this, you'll probably want to keep
eclasses/ as well.
2- There was a portagesql effort, is it dead?
Yes. It has been for a while, afa
Hi all,
As part of the final project for my graduation in Informatics
Engineering (kinda Computer Science but that's the official name),
I'm gonna develop a "distributed" portage so we can have a test
lab at our uni with Gentoo (Starting September 1st). The idea is to
have a central machine with t
19 matches
Mail list logo
