From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2269 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2004 04:04:25 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 24 Aug 2004 04:04:25 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BzSXo-0006CV-F7 for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Aug 2004 04:04:24 +0000 Received: (qmail 13713 invoked by uid 89); 24 Aug 2004 04:04:23 +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 11692 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2004 04:04:22 +0000 From: Mike Frysinger Organization: wh0rd.org To: Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 00:04:07 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <412A9AFD.2030609@gentoo.org> <200408232331.07483.vapier@gentoo.org> <412ABCFA.5060007@ramshacklestudios.com> In-Reply-To: <412ABCFA.5060007@ramshacklestudios.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Boundary-02=_/4rKBp8oXjvDWPc"; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200408240004.16910.vapier@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] development-sources are not 'development' X-Archives-Salt: 816609f6-b5a8-4832-81f8-73da51246e4e X-Archives-Hash: cd2c4546f5766884719ab1ace55ca57b --Boundary-02=_/4rKBp8oXjvDWPc Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Monday 23 August 2004 11:58 pm, Peter Gordon wrote: > So perhaps they could be slotted as sys-kernel virtuals where 2.6 > ebuilds have a "!( =3Dgentoo-sources-2.4* )" DEPEND and 2.4 ebuilds have a > "!( =3Dgentoo-sources-2.6* )" DEPEND or something to that effect? Then you > would not be forced to upgrade, unless you replaced the virtual by > unmerging one kernel branch and merging the other. Would this work out? no, because some people switch between 2.4 and 2.6 while testing things imho, portage should have a way to keep kernel upgrades along the major and= =20 minor versions ... that is, you can upgrade from 2.4.25 to 2.4.26, but=20 portage wont try to upgrade you to 2.6.8 ... perhaps it isnt feasible atm .= =2E. =2Dmike --Boundary-02=_/4rKBp8oXjvDWPc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.9.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: iQIVAwUAQSq+PkFjO5/oN/WBAQJkshAAsYlzdwRS5eChO2jzvi+mWP62EKA7H3JA wXahVC+0eEiG/ew7Ae25XRzVvDTcwi7PEf92DQQYI0G61TJs7hyeFP8/q7nCyOdf MztDfNgKBUUGWtkd9nklGGr/xtjGouFLlxSVz/hwvktwB9+zA6ju8n9vkOSzpMat lReQU9Q6f4YYvxgvdbQy7s5dzfGpYv0yVC0gqNh6QNLZ5eMhcw+x4Cil0q0aBppg iBKNVcIJPWjI4L7f7ijspjk/C+Zem46KNBu+oc31rZtbPOCMmunOgNDUiwv67tIm G/Hr5l309WBD5Jgmd7Ia14yL/Temr1iRVdEAAMt1rGWLjZDJkGychZ3XhKqcXd+7 qgCaywK4X1+aP/kz2UnWoLglH53Z0d1qSUSG+rPdL4+YKTeIkm2KHk5fsWQ2OULA GPxZQfG2ddSIQu+8qikUMpklWd5H1VQG1tQI5bwICeCc63pl0POUCYvPK95+99/x 3nqqQH3Z9vOiYksbWHR+OCpYhYQ1IiUvb2LMa5fJINGyZwNLnwXJIFW5356JLICx n9nDg1hYuO8Ois4TML0CsJPCNk0jPlKN4hz14b17DKOBG3FJ9SSHDbjjwAWgNhdv /60JjzvKWouzsIEb3N39Qm2VkNpCPtQR58AcvsQl9QjyLIOU72lRPPDB11X+JlN4 8R4i9vJ+ZdA= =UnDU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_/4rKBp8oXjvDWPc--