-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I don't know whether all of you read my blog, but I wanted to make sure
you saw this:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/spyderous/60809.html?thread=89737#t89737.
It's a reply from the author of a book on why he rated our package
management at a 4
On Thu, 2005-10-11 at 11:09 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I don't know whether all of you read my blog, but I wanted to make sure
you saw this:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/spyderous/60809.html?thread=89737#t89737.
It's a reply from the
Just a quick question. With all the changes I see in this list. Is
there anything coming (that you know of) that will break porthole's use
of portage.
So far I have not experienced any real difficulties. The only hick-up I
had was reloading portage after updating to _rc7. Portage failed to
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 06:42:54PM -0800, Brian wrote:
Just a quick question. With all the changes I see in this list. Is
there anything coming (that you know of) that will break porthole's use
of portage.
Long term? I'm unfortunately looking at breaking pretty much all api
access portage
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 09:29:22PM -0800, Brian wrote:
On Thu, 2005-10-11 at 20:51 -0600, Brian Harring wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 06:42:54PM -0800, Brian wrote:
Just a quick question. With all the changes I see in this list. Is
there anything coming (that you know of) that will
