On Sunday 21 May 2006 05:44, Brian Harring wrote:
So... where's the standard? :)
Right, no doc yet that's official, thus at this juncture, what's
there now (portage) is the effective standard.
Said in the last thread, chunking out a formal EAPI=0 definition from
the tree/portage
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I have not read this carefully. There is a lot to work through. At first
reading, I like it a lot.
Regards,
Ferris
- --
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
A secondary package manager is a package manager that instead of
directly aiming
at replacing portage as primary package manager.
What does it do instead?
The first restriction is that no packages in the tree must rely on
the secondary
package manager. While packages may provide a
On Sat, 20 May 2006 14:54:18 +0200
Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*Primary Package Manager*
There is one primary package manager.
Gentoo has always been about choice, could you explain what is the rationale
behind having only one primary package manager?
All ebuilds in the
I agree with the basic intent here, but remain unconvinced that this is
the best way to solve the problems at hand. See below for comments on
particular parts, and for what I believe could be a more elegant
solution. It's not a complete proposal and will be rather rough around
the edges, being
On Saturday 20 May 2006 15:47, Dan Meltzer wrote:
A secondary package manager is a package manager that instead of directly
aiming at replacing portage as primary package manager.
What does it do instead?
I've just committed a new revision, but it cooperates. A slip up on my part.
The
On Saturday 20 May 2006 11:51, Thomas Cort wrote:
On Sat, 20 May 2006 14:54:18 +0200
Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*Primary Package Manager*
There is one primary package manager.
Gentoo has always been about choice, could you explain what is the
rationale behind having
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
The promissed glep on package manager requirements. Please comment on it.
There are some parts that may be controversial (portage has in the past not
provided support for reverting to stable either), but please keep the
discussion on topic.
Paul
s/primary/official/g
On Sat, 20 May 2006 15:41:37 +0100
Stephen Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The primary package manager is the package manager that sets the
standards for the tree. All ebuilds in the tree must function
with the primary package manager. As the primary package manager
sets the
On Saturday 20 May 2006 19:45, Marius Mauch wrote:
On Sat, 20 May 2006 15:41:37 +0100
Stephen Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The primary package manager is the package manager that sets the
standards for the tree. All ebuilds in the tree must function
with the primary
On Saturday 20 May 2006 18:00, Alec Warner wrote:
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
The promissed glep on package manager requirements. Please comment on it.
There are some parts that may be controversial (portage has in the past
not provided support for reverting to stable either), but please keep the
On Sat, 20 May 2006 17:11:57 +0200
Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The primary package manager is maintained on official gentoo
infrastructure, under control of gentoo developers.
I don't really see this as a requirement. Many Linux distributions use
package managers that they
Just two points:
- standards should not be set by the primary package manager
- the primary package manager does not have to be developed by Gentoo.
More about it below:
maillog: 20/05/2006-14:54:18(+0200): Paul de Vrieze types
The primary package manager is the package manager that sets the
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 12:10:40PM +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
Just two points:
- standards should not be set by the primary package manager
- the primary package manager does not have to be developed by Gentoo.
More about it below:
maillog: 20/05/2006-14:54:18(+0200): Paul de Vrieze
14 matches
Mail list logo
