From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7081 invoked from network); 17 May 2004 21:40:36 +0000 Received: from toucan.ussg.indiana.edu (HELO smtp.gentoo.org) (156.56.111.197) by eagle.gentoo.oregonstate.edu with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP; 17 May 2004 21:40:36 +0000 Received: from eagle.gentoo.oregonstate.edu ([128.193.0.34] helo=eagle.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BPpqb-00055P-Ny for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:40:33 +0000 Received: (qmail 26698 invoked by uid 50004); 17 May 2004 21:40:33 +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 29453 invoked from network); 17 May 2004 21:40:32 +0000 Message-ID: <40A9314E.5020009@scms.waikato.ac.nz> Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 09:40:30 +1200 From: Barry Shaw User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (X11/20040306) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20040514021143.GU26837@gentoo.org> <40A45028.5040700@scms.waikato.ac.nz> <20040517092128.GF7079@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20040517092128.GF7079@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Alternative names for binaries in app-text/cook and dev-util/cook X-Archives-Salt: 41a2c264-5b2d-450b-991a-91cbfe2da088 X-Archives-Hash: cf0faf4294966af4f7ff3ec884569bdb -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Karl Trygve Kalleberg wrote: | On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 04:50:48PM +1200, Barry Shaw wrote: | | The name clashes that happen in /usr/portage/packages/All are a side effect | of the current implementation of the binary package system, and is in, imho, | very unfortunate. | We've implemented a binary distribution and maintenance system and in the process have found a number of problems like this with portage and binaries. What would be the appropriate forum to mention these problems in (gentoo-portage-dev maybe?). Thanks Baz -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAqTFOJvZkjpKMF2wRAvBzAJ47Z1qy4fNaPxE8ruhtwY/fXncaGgCguIcX oPz3Aer6cfpaAt8fUeNjw1E= =ugCy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list