From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26405 invoked from network); 25 Aug 2004 23:53:05 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 25 Aug 2004 23:53:05 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C07Zg-0006kT-47 for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 23:53:04 +0000 Received: (qmail 19033 invoked by uid 89); 25 Aug 2004 23:53:03 +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 5994 invoked from network); 25 Aug 2004 23:53:03 +0000 Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 16:49:36 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Chris Gianelloni Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Message-ID: <20040825234936.GA28128@kroah.com> Reply-To: gentoo-dev References: <412CD487.5040705@gentoo.org> <20040825182258.GC30125@kroah.com> <20040825194020.GA9706@kroah.com> <20040825210013.513f0664@snowdrop.home> <20040825201312.GD9706@kroah.com> <1093473709.31835.87.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1093473709.31835.87.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] devleopment sources are no longer 'development' - example X-Archives-Salt: 0a19de07-dbf3-4687-bb81-bfade3ce48de X-Archives-Hash: 58504740b39001c19c190ddc9f12ea2c On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 06:41:49PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 16:13, Greg KH wrote: > > But then what is preventing us from having both a 2.4 and 2.6 version of > > gentoo-sources? Is it the following statement in that same file: > > Nothing... which was why we had the vote at the manager's meeting. Great, I didn't realize that was the outcome. > While I have planned out a fairly extensive timeline, if the kernel > developers decided they wished to merge the two, I would think that is > their prerogative. Well, I'll gladly do it tomorrow if I'm allowed to :) But what was your timeline? > Kernels are already SLOTted based on their version, so I don't think it > would cause a problem. All we would have to do is be sure to document > that if a user wants to stick with a 2.4 gentoo-sources, that they > should p.mask >=sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-2.5* If that's it, that's not so bad. But where do we document such a change? thanks, greg k-h -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list