From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1ENKlO-0005lc-5d for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2005 01:41:38 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id j961W7ZX028735; Thu, 6 Oct 2005 01:32:07 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id j961W6K5025168 for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2005 01:32:06 GMT Received: from 82-41-57-20.cable.ubr08.edin.blueyonder.co.uk ([82.41.57.20] helo=snowdrop.home) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1ENKkP-00032r-T3 for gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2005 01:40:38 +0000 Received: from localhost.home ([127.0.0.1] helo=snowdrop.home) by snowdrop.home with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1ENKko-0003qO-S0 for gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2005 02:41:02 +0100 Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 02:40:58 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Questions about CVS locations and GID... Message-ID: <20051006024058.10f9e51a@snowdrop.home> In-Reply-To: <20051006013219.GN13519@nightcrawler> References: <20051005230012.GK10159@nightcrawler> <20051006001430.364854e2@snowdrop.home> <20051005232236.GE13519@nightcrawler> <20051006003835.59140f4b@snowdrop.home> <20051005234046.GG13519@nightcrawler> <20051006011353.4a2a84c2@snowdrop.home> <20051006010134.GL13519@nightcrawler> <20051006020732.1bbfa8c4@snowdrop.home> <20051006011740.GM13519@nightcrawler> <20051006022347.5c8e608b@snowdrop.home> <20051006013219.GN13519@nightcrawler> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 1.9.13 (GTK+ 2.6.8; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Signature_Thu__6_Oct_2005_02_40_58_+0100_y1yc=zQYlirx6c=b"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: f4af6cb4-1381-4c42-9305-621114bc0775 X-Archives-Hash: 59150a784af501a814c957c3799d7d18 --Signature_Thu__6_Oct_2005_02_40_58_+0100_y1yc=zQYlirx6c=b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 20:32:20 -0500 Brian Harring wrote: | > That's rather short-sighted... Portage is irrelevant without the | > ebuilds. |=20 | And ebuilds are irrelevant without portage. Point? Portage is considerably less work than the tree. Saving as much effort as possible from an ebuild perspective should be a major consideration, even if it makes the portage side more complicated. Think of how all the ebuild-related problems are going to be solved first. Don't leave it as an afterthought. | My point experimentation can start for addressing the issues you keep=20 | pointing at still stands. The sensible place to start experimenting is by adapting existing ebuilds and tinkering with ebuild.sh, not by adding something which may or may not end up being relevant to portage proper. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm --Signature_Thu__6_Oct_2005_02_40_58_+0100_y1yc=zQYlirx6c=b Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDRICu96zL6DUtXhERArXNAKDd1DyOKaJxH4fNvhKT/4eFkK6EOACg0kek uavdGnaLxRcUcZ5u+DyCTq0= =zsx1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature_Thu__6_Oct_2005_02_40_58_+0100_y1yc=zQYlirx6c=b-- -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list