Hi Natanael,
> If/when its time to look for new package manager, please take a look at
> apk-tools. http://apk-tools.sourceforge.net.
Oh, indeed - that surely is on the list of things to check out.
> You would probably want to create packages from files installed on the
> system, using include
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:30:48 +0100
Martin Hejl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the fact that we didn't drop everything to implement a different package
> system back when this came up in the past, doesn't mean that we will
> never change the packaging system (same goes for the kernel, by the
> way).
Tim Wegner wrote:
Sure I wish Charles, David D., and Jacques had decided to maintain
their leaf branches, but like everyone else they do what their time,
interests, and priorities permit. I'm sure glad the Bering uClibc
team did what they did. I can't see the future, but whatever happens
with
On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 08:48, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote:
> Mike;
>
> Eric Spakman indeed spoke for the Bering-uClibc team and their decisions.
>
> He just expressed a view in the discussion
KP,
He did, and I expressed mine.
> - that's what disscussions are for.
True.
> If someone will build a new
On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 09:35, Tim Wegner wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>
> > I'm probably a dinosaur, and my time has passed. :-(
>
> Mike, cut yourself some slack. You are not a dinosaur. But you are
> clearly discouraged, not suprising given all you have to personally
> deal with. But if there
On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 09:30, Martin Hejl wrote:
> I'm utterly confused. In the mail you linked to, you wrote:
>
> >1. Use of evolution as a development model.
> >2. Tolerance for new ideas and differing opinions.
> >3. Full control by lead developers of release/branch direction
> >
Mike wrote:
> I'm probably a dinosaur, and my time has passed. :-(
Mike, cut yourself some slack. You are not a dinosaur. But you are
clearly discouraged, not suprising given all you have to personally
deal with. But if there is any way you can avoid projecting onto the
project your o
Hi Mike,
note - when I say "we", I'm speaking of the Bering uClibc team (and not
LEAF as a whole or developers from other branches).
>>Ofcourse we look at things like kernel 2.6 and initramfs and we will
>>> move on when it gain us something, but one step at a time.
>
>
> The 'we' above is a
Mike;
Eric Spakman indeed spoke for the Bering-uClibc team and their decisions.
He just expressed a view in the discussion - that's what disscussions are for.
If someone will build a new branch like Alpine it would be fine, and may speed
Bering-uClibc with 2.6 kernel significantly
From day one
On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 03:16, Eric Spakman wrote:
> I really don't see your point. Why do you see those things as an
> improvement, what does it 'solve' (and what is Alpine?).
Eric,
Others have expressed interest in these ideas. Vinki, created a 2.6
kernel, and Alpine was a proposed new branch.
Hi Mike,
>> I don't agree with you, there is still room for evolution.
>
>Eric,
>Where?
>
>2.6 kernel <-- discouraged
>initramfs <-- discouraged
>Alpine <-- discouraged
>
>I can go on, but I think you see my point.
>
I really don't see your point. Why do you see those thing
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 10:28, Eric Spakman wrote:
> > I think my evolution idea has died. My last few attempts to bring new
> > leaf branches in, or create new ones within our project have failed. The
> > bering-uclibc team seems to have gained enough support that other
> > derivations fail to succe
Hi Mike,
Mike Noyes wrote:
> Everyone,
> I think my evolution idea has died. My last few attempts to bring new
> leaf branches in, or create new ones within our project have failed. The
> bering-uclibc team seems to have gained enough support that other
> derivations fail to succeed within leaf. W
Hello Mike.
> Everyone,
> I think my evolution idea has died. My last few attempts to bring new
> leaf branches in, or create new ones within our project have failed. The
> bering-uclibc team seems to have gained enough support that other
> derivations fail to succeed within leaf. We haven't had a
14 matches
Mail list logo
