Josh Saddler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:12:06 -0800:
> We all know that ssh is good for sysadmins and netadmins and Gentoo
> developers, etc. However, desktop users -- i.e., those not in those
> categories, which is most everyone else, li
Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Don't suppose you have a url for their reasoning?
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=151758
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 01:37:28PM +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten?? wrote:
> "Santiago M. Mola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Having a complete
> > deptree and having a small system package set should be independent
> > goals, maybe your proposal should focus on making possible to have a
> >
"Santiago M. Mola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Having a complete
> deptree and having a small system package set should be independent
> goals, maybe your proposal should focus on making possible to have a
> deptree as complete as possible independently of what packages are on
> system set.
QA
On Jan 8, 2008 12:34 PM, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So my goals are:
> - have a deptree as complete as possible;
Your goals make sense but reducing the system package set seems like
workaround to get you indirectly where you want. Having a complete
deptree and havin
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What is your goal? Is there something you're trying to accomplish that's
> impossible? It's clear that changing this would be a fair amount of
> work, and I don't understand the benefits.
With the current size of system packages set, having a comple
