From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25664 invoked from network); 25 Aug 2004 20:11:46 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 25 Aug 2004 20:11:46 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C047V-0001Vf-PS for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 20:11:45 +0000 Received: (qmail 27177 invoked by uid 89); 25 Aug 2004 20:11:45 +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 8824 invoked from network); 25 Aug 2004 20:11:44 +0000 From: Tom Wesley To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 21:13:07 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.7 References: <412CD487.5040705@gentoo.org> <20040825210013.513f0664@snowdrop.home> <412CF121.6050703@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <412CF121.6050703@gentoo.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2652607.xKGZPy7f4t"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200408252113.09897.tom@tomaw.org> X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de auth:e0c4ec921101b4afa5f9efb3db39afe3 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] devleopment sources are no longer 'development' - example X-Archives-Salt: c63c1cf3-5d1c-4f9f-9da7-784886e16437 X-Archives-Hash: c9cb2189c803ff32ba26068297960491 --nextPart2652607.xKGZPy7f4t Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Wednesday 25 August 2004 21:05, Stephen P. Becker wrote: > I think that precedent has already been set with linux26-headers > unfortunately. > Doesn't mean it shouldn't be reversed... > -Steve > > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > 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 > =2D-=20 Tom Wesley --nextPart2652607.xKGZPy7f4t Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBBLPLV0SQtKmb1pwMRAjbzAJ9EV12zkKq3WFN1RVlj43srpl40oACdHxan dScQ+/VZt/GaefExRkan3LI= =O5z+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2652607.xKGZPy7f4t--