From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 268 invoked from network); 28 Oct 2004 21:20:29 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 28 Oct 2004 21:20:29 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1CNHh7-0007lh-5e for arch-gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:20:29 +0000 Received: (qmail 17957 invoked by uid 89); 28 Oct 2004 21:19:45 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-portage-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail Reply-To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 32060 invoked from network); 28 Oct 2004 21:19:45 +0000 From: Stuart Herbert Reply-To: stuart@gentoo.org Organization: Gentoo Linux Project To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 22:19:43 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 References: <1098993757.9091.107.camel@www.toruslaptop.com> <1098995650.9085.118.camel@www.toruslaptop.com> <1098996955.9085.127.camel@www.toruslaptop.com> In-Reply-To: <1098996955.9085.127.camel@www.toruslaptop.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200410282219.43472.stuart@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] webapp-config and webapps X-Archives-Salt: 4a3453a4-428f-49ed-bd12-7faa7a312374 X-Archives-Hash: a9564af524ce550f734360623df44944 On Thursday 28 October 2004 21:55, Wendall Cada wrote: > When the switch way made, it was done poorly. How could we have done it better? News items were published on www.gentoo.org, in GWN, and in a popular magazine. Announcements were posted to Gentoo mailing lists. The one thing we do lack is documentation on www.gentoo.org. However, the man pages that come with webapp-config are very comprehensive. > Previous implementations should have been honored. Not possible, practical, or desirable. Sorry. > If this is the way of the future, I guess I'm > stuck. Else, please consider moving back to making non-structural > changes be handled by portage. What is it about webapp-config that concerns you? Best regards, Stu -- -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list