From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lakermmtao01.cox.net (lakermmtao01.cox.net [68.230.240.38]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j55HqdVe002892 for ; Sun, 5 Jun 2005 17:52:40 GMT Received: from [172.16.1.202] (really [68.110.242.20]) by lakermmtao01.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP id <20050605175248.RYNM11036.lakermmtao01.cox.net@[172.16.1.202]> for ; Sun, 5 Jun 2005 13:52:48 -0400 From: Michael Cummings To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: sys-pam category Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 13:50:15 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 References: <200506051622.24240@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org> <1117985871.30949.13.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1117985871.30949.13.camel@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200506051350.15778.mcummings@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: fd23457a-76e1-44f0-b240-d8517b447c33 X-Archives-Hash: 4d0a57a97ecf14646d3cc748cf374749 Solar, I realize you meant this as a general statement of opinion and not a flame-baiter, but can you elaborate on: On Sunday 05 June 2005 11:37, Ned Ludd wrote: > Invalidates binary package trees. My (wrong?) understanding was that this is addressed when portage runs a fixpackages (otherwise what's it doing to all those binary packages?). I ask because its no secret that I'm working on a split up of dev-perl from the 500+ packages to a better organized, reasonable scenario where packages are categorized based on, well, category :) rather than on the fact that they "contain some perl bits or module bits, stuff them in dev-perl". Just curious, it's not my intent to hurt anyone's trees along the way :) -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list