From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27003 invoked by uid 1002); 1 Sep 2003 19:35:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 2834 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2003 19:35:17 -0000 From: Luke-Jr Organization: Gentoo Linux To: Steven Elling , gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 19:34:51 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 References: <200308311601.23468.puggy@bobspants.com> <3F523B07.1000109@milsson.nu> <200309011234.31926.ellings@kcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <200309011234.31926.ellings@kcnet.com> GPG-Public-Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xD53E9583 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: clearsigned data Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200309011935.15217.luke-jr@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage through SSH X-Archives-Salt: 630600eb-ec63-47cd-a509-8c8c1de0d9a4 X-Archives-Hash: 539b6f52fdc4a77512b58d635ef453cb =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Just thought it might be worth noting that: 1. The document is not endorsed by w3c (as might be implied by the URI) 2. It was submitted by Marimba Incorporated and Microsoft Corporation. 3. No doubt as result of item #2, the "OS value" for Linux is "Lunix" in th= e=20 document. 4. This format uses the term "OS" to refer to the kernel only. There are no= t=20 even provisions for different actual operating systems (eg Gentoo, RedHat,= =20 Windows 98, Windows XP, Mac OS X, etc). Perhaps something based on this might be considered, but I don't think it=20 would be a good idea to use the exact format described when taking these=20 issues into consideration. On Monday 01 September 2003 05:34 pm, Steven Elling wrote: > On Sunday 31 August 2003 13:14, John Nilsson wrote: > > Some requirement thoughts: > > A network of gentoo hosts should have only one portage processing server > > and any number of installation leafs. > > > > First of all portage needs to easily handle more than one installation. > > Second the "leaf-installations" should have a very strict minimum > > requiremnts. > > Third redundancy is probably important. The information to restore a > > lost "leaf" should be availible on booth the portage host and on the > > leaf it self. > > Just in case no one has seen this, I just ran across "The Open Software > Description Format (OSD)" (http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-OSD) and think it can > be used to implement a central portage server with push/pull software > distribution. > > > -- > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list =2D --=20 Luke-Jr Developer, Gentoo Linux http://www.gentoo.org/ =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/U59tZl/BHdU+lYMRAgKWAJwPXXNnPT66wkFLu6Uefm5qZOb3JgCdE316 1KSYHyX2cNy0amI4g5+Gvks=3D =3Dcn2S =2D----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list