On 11/20/14 5:15 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 01:36:32 +0100
> hasufell wrote:
>> Exherbo is already running a more modular approach, I'd be interested
>> what they have to say about this or which problems they were facing.
>
> Well the big thing is that unlike Gentoo, Exherbo
On 11/20/2014 12:41 PM, Jauhien Piatlicki wrote:
> On 11/20/2014 05:39 AM, hasufell wrote:
>>
>> I see a lot of things to figure out (especially PM-side, tools-side,
>> maybe even PMS, maybe even repository layout, but also documentation and
>> if it makes sense culture-wise), but I don't see a fun
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 01:36:32 +0100
hasufell wrote:
> Exherbo is already running a more modular approach, I'd be interested
> what they have to say about this or which problems they were facing.
Well the big thing is that unlike Gentoo, Exherbo was able to switch to
using Git for its repositories.
On 11/20/2014 05:39 AM, hasufell wrote:
>
> I see a lot of things to figure out (especially PM-side, tools-side,
> maybe even PMS, maybe even repository layout, but also documentation and
> if it makes sense culture-wise), but I don't see a fundamental
> unsolvable problem here.
>
It would be in
On 11/20/2014 04:03 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 7:36 PM, hasufell wrote:
>>
>> But keep in mind that the core is supposed to shrink with this idea of a
>> distributed model! So it would be less work to actually roll/tag
>> releases than it would be right now (or even do that
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 7:36 PM, hasufell wrote:
>
> But keep in mind that the core is supposed to shrink with this idea of a
> distributed model! So it would be less work to actually roll/tag
> releases than it would be right now (or even do that stuff in branches).
This doesn't really make the
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 01:36:11 +0100
"viv...@gmail.com" wrote:
> >> At that point it is forked. I don't see what's wrong with forking.
> > Forking wouldn't be the problem. Duplication of effort would be the
> > problem.
> worse, mutually incompatibility would be much worse
I was talking about wha
On 11/20/2014 12:58 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:54 PM, hasufell wrote:
>> On 11/19/2014 06:27 PM, Jauhien Piatlicki wrote:
>>> On 11/19/2014 03:36 PM, hasufell wrote:
In the end, I'm not sure if this is actually such a big problem. You can
still use random e
Il 20/11/2014 01:00, Jeroen Roovers ha scritto:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 18:54:05 +0100
> hasufell wrote:
>
>> At that point it is forked. I don't see what's wrong with forking.
> Forking wouldn't be the problem. Duplication of effort would be the
> problem.
>
>
> jer
>
worse, mutually incompati
Il 20/11/2014 00:58, Rich Freeman ha scritto:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:54 PM, hasufell wrote:
>> On 11/19/2014 06:27 PM, Jauhien Piatlicki wrote:
>>> On 11/19/2014 03:36 PM, hasufell wrote:
In the end, I'm not sure if this is actually such a big problem. You can
still use random ebui
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 18:54:05 +0100
hasufell wrote:
> At that point it is forked. I don't see what's wrong with forking.
Forking wouldn't be the problem. Duplication of effort would be the
problem.
jer
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:54 PM, hasufell wrote:
> On 11/19/2014 06:27 PM, Jauhien Piatlicki wrote:
>> On 11/19/2014 03:36 PM, hasufell wrote:
>>>
>>> In the end, I'm not sure if this is actually such a big problem. You can
>>> still use random ebuilds from random overlays and commit them straigh
On 11/19/2014 06:27 PM, Jauhien Piatlicki wrote:
> On 11/19/2014 03:36 PM, hasufell wrote:
>>
>> In the end, I'm not sure if this is actually such a big problem. You can
>> still use random ebuilds from random overlays and commit them straight
>> to your own overlay.
>>
>
> A bad idea. Bad because
On 11/19/2014 03:36 PM, hasufell wrote:
> On 11/18/2014 02:12 PM, Jauhien Piatlicki wrote:
>>
>> On 11/18/2014 04:19 AM, hero...@gentoo.org wrote:
>>> Jauhien Piatlicki writes:
>>>
It would be probably good to have in the tree only the core components and
move other stuff to the themati
On 11/18/2014 02:12 PM, Jauhien Piatlicki wrote:
>
> On 11/18/2014 04:19 AM, hero...@gentoo.org wrote:
>> Jauhien Piatlicki writes:
>>
>>> It would be probably good to have in the tree only the core components and
>>> move other stuff to the thematic overlays.
>>>
>>> Then we can have a clear un
On 11/18/2014 03:02 PM, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
> Il 18/11/2014 14:12, Jauhien Piatlicki ha scritto:
>> On 11/18/2014 04:19 AM, hero...@gentoo.org wrote:
>>> Jauhien Piatlicki writes:
>>>
It would be probably good to have in the tree only the core components and
move other stuff to the
Il 18/11/2014 14:12, Jauhien Piatlicki ha scritto:
> On 11/18/2014 04:19 AM, hero...@gentoo.org wrote:
>> Jauhien Piatlicki writes:
>>
>>> It would be probably good to have in the tree only the core components and
>>> move other stuff to the thematic overlays.
>>>
>>> Then we can have a clear und
On 11/18/2014 04:19 AM, hero...@gentoo.org wrote:
> Jauhien Piatlicki writes:
>
>> It would be probably good to have in the tree only the core components and
>> move other stuff to the thematic overlays.
>>
>> Then we can have a clear understanding, how things should be: if
>> something is a pa
18 matches
Mail list logo
