On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> In terms of goals, [1] is what I'd consider to be an ideal list.
One thing I would personally add to the list is to somehow be able to
set certain packages not to update more than x often. There are some
packages which users care about wh
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 20:22:16 +0100
> Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
>> But in comment 4 user ask about updates itself. If we have live
>> package and revision does not change it is pointless waste of
>> resources to recompile it usualy.
> * Allowi
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 20:43:09 +0100
Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> So i guess adding wrapper around remaining relevant phases is just
> bit coding around.
It's not. Not if you want to be able to do background fetches, not if
you want to be able to show the user at --pretend time what's going to
happen, an
Dne sobota 14 Březen 2009 20:32:52 Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
> Doing this properly is an awful lot of work and a lot trickier than
> initially apparent. There was a discussion in #gentoo-council about it
> after the last meeting; unfortunately I don't have logs.
Hm i try to crawl around if i find
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 20:22:16 +0100
Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> But in comment 4 user ask about updates itself. If we have live
> package and revision does not change it is pointless waste of
> resources to recompile it usualy.
Doing this properly is an awful lot of work and a lot trickier than
initial
hi,
if you find your time would you mind pointing your eyes on bug 262010 [1].
There is interesting idea about loging usefull informations about repository
for further usage (that thing i find interesting and already implemented [2]).
But in comment 4 user ask about updates itself. If we have li
