Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuilds not getting in :(

["Stroller" <GentooGimp@myrealbox.com>]

On Thursday, April 24, 2003, at 04:50  am, George Shapovalov wrote:

> On Wednesday 23 April 2003 17:32, Stroller wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 22, 2003, at 02:17  pm, Peter Ruskin wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 22 Apr 2003 13:59, Frantz Dhin wrote:
>>>> ... maybe we could make a
>>>> new keyword? x86 for stable, ~x86 for unstable, and ^x86 for
>>>> lunatic?
>>> I couldn't agree more!
>> Me, either! I don't know that "lunatic" is the best word, but it
>> seems to me that an additional hierarchy [0] allows for a framework
>> more flexible & extensible for end lusers. As I understand it builds
>> with  the
> Unfortunately this is not that easy. Just accepting ebuild in and
> letting them
> rot is either a dead-end or a security breach (or both :).
....
> Please take a look at #1523 to see what's on the plate ;).
>> [1] Am I correctly abbreviating "^86, ^ppc or whatever" here?

Yeah, sorry. I'm clearly not qualified to comment. I decided to make my
reply before reading others about multiple rsync servers &c. My main
reason for posting was to object to the suggestion of naming a USE flag
after a hypothetical Honda.

I haven't had the chance to read your full proposal yet, but just the
title of "Distributed ebuild processing system" sounds inspiring - I
look forward to giving it my full attention, and eventually to seeing
the results.

Stroller.


-- 
Enjoyed this post? Thanks for reading - Give me a job!
Technical support / system administration
Linux / Unix / Windows / Mac OS X  - UK or anywhere considered



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list