On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 00:40 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 11 January 2008, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > For one, a way to mark a profile as deprecated in profiles.desc so
> > repoman doesn't scan it (currently, we remove tend to remove them from
> > the list).
>
> is this really needed ?
On Friday 11 January 2008, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> For one, a way to mark a profile as deprecated in profiles.desc so
> repoman doesn't scan it (currently, we remove tend to remove them from
> the list).
is this really needed ? i'm trying to see why this would be useful, and not
coming up with
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 09:59 -0500, Doug Klima wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > after dealing with m68k, mips, and the *-fbsd ports, i think we could do
> > with
> > a new state for profiles.desc. the new field would simply be "exp" to
> > indicate that the profile is experimental and that qa
Mike Frysinger wrote:
after dealing with m68k, mips, and the *-fbsd ports, i think we could do with
a new state for profiles.desc. the new field would simply be "exp" to
indicate that the profile is experimental and that qa tools should generally
not issue warnings about them. so in repoman's
after dealing with m68k, mips, and the *-fbsd ports, i think we could do with
a new state for profiles.desc. the new field would simply be "exp" to
indicate that the profile is experimental and that qa tools should generally
not issue warnings about them. so in repoman's default mode, you woul
