From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23939 invoked from network); 25 Aug 2004 20:03:17 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 25 Aug 2004 20:03:17 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C03zI-00045P-Sa for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 20:03:16 +0000 Received: (qmail 15055 invoked by uid 89); 25 Aug 2004 20:03:16 +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 31857 invoked from network); 25 Aug 2004 20:03:15 +0000 Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 21:00:13 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev Message-Id: <20040825210013.513f0664@snowdrop.home> In-Reply-To: <20040825194020.GA9706@kroah.com> References: <412CD487.5040705@gentoo.org> <20040825182258.GC30125@kroah.com> <20040825194020.GA9706@kroah.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 0.9.12 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; boundary="Signature=_Wed__25_Aug_2004_21_00_13_+0100_2JtStSW+2du/3pvA" Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] devleopment sources are no longer 'development' - example X-Archives-Salt: 756853bf-1bbe-4ec8-87a7-51789a2e6abd X-Archives-Hash: 6eb990318c1af132922f82ad2b26c0f3 --Signature=_Wed__25_Aug_2004_21_00_13_+0100_2JtStSW+2du/3pvA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:40:20 -0700 Greg KH wrote: | > gentoo-sources24 | > gentoo-sources26 | | I don't have a problem with this, but the dependancy stuff might not | work out properly for some odd kernel-based userspace packages. | | Anyone object to this? Well, it's pretty nasty... Part of the idea of SLOTs is that we never need to include version numbers in packages... In fact our docs [1] even say: > Most distributions and ports systems tend to have a "freetype" package > for freetype 1.x and "freetype2" for 2.x. We consider this approach a > sign of a fundamentally broken package management system. Do we really want to admit that our package manager is broken? [1]: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/portage-manual.xml -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox) Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm --Signature=_Wed__25_Aug_2004_21_00_13_+0100_2JtStSW+2du/3pvA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBLO/P96zL6DUtXhERAp0xAKDFZu0nYiNt8BQPr4PHPaasP0fz1QCdFXEG C35GtZhyBPQ4m748+0ZoMZ8= =ZlCZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Wed__25_Aug_2004_21_00_13_+0100_2JtStSW+2du/3pvA--