On Tuesday 13 June 2006 01:00, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> My current idea is to draw up a formal specification of what ebuilds
> are allowed to do, and what to assume about the environment in which
> they run, as well as defining the formats of everything under
> profiles/, metadata.xml files, and ot
On Monday 12 June 2006 19:00, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> My current idea is to draw up a formal specification
huge wang
this would simplify greatly the work required for people to develop a package
manager compatible with Gentoo ebuilds
-mike
pgpW85vGl5vYU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 20:14 -0400, Daniel Ostrow wrote:
> One thing I do ask...Lets all start now getting used to calling the
> "portage tree" something different. I'm all for terms like "the tree" or
> "the ebuild tree" or "the package tree" but at this point, given the
> prompting subject matter,
Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:04:39 -0400
> Luis Francisco Araujo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> I like the idea. This would be some kind of portage-tree standard?
>>
>
> This would be, in essence, a formal definition of the layout of the
> tree, and the format of and a
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 13:38 +0200, Andrej Kacian wrote:
> On related note, why "virtual/portage" ? Why not "virtual/packagemanager", or
> something like that?
Because it already exists and is the least intrusive change. bug #69208
--
Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Linux
--
gentoo-dev@gen
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 20:14:02 -0400
Daniel Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One thing I do ask...Lets all start now getting used to calling the
> "portage tree" something different. I'm all for terms like "the tree" or
> "the ebuild tree" or "the package tree" but at this point, given the
> prom
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 12:00:43AM +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> My current idea is to draw up a formal specification of what ebuilds
> are allowed to do, and what to assume about the environment in which
> they run, as well as defining the formats of everything under
> profiles/, metadata.xml fi
Alec Warner wrote:
>
> I prefer gentoo-x86, although others hate that x86-centric moniker ;)
>
ebuilds' tree could be ok (now after the transgender cow Larry we greet
the transgenic fruits that grown on trees but have to be herded: the
Ebuilds!)
Ok, I should not post after midnight, local time.
Daniel Ostrow wrote:
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 19:04 -0400, Luis Francisco Araujo wrote:
Stephen Bennett wrote:
Continuing in the series of issues raised during the previous package
manager discussions, I'd like to continue by mentioning the tree
format. At present, it isn't defined beyond "what
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 00:00:43 +0100
Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My current idea is to draw up a formal specification of what ebuilds
> are allowed to do, and what to assume about the environment in which
> they run, as well as defining the formats of everything under
> profiles/, m
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 19:04 -0400, Luis Francisco Araujo wrote:
> Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > Continuing in the series of issues raised during the previous package
> > manager discussions, I'd like to continue by mentioning the tree
> > format. At present, it isn't defined beyond "what the current p
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 01:26:39AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Stephen Bennett wrote:
>
> > This would be, in essence, a formal definition of the layout of the
> > tree, and the format of and assumptions made by every file contained
> > within it.
>
> I'm all for it.
Definately. Go for it.
Reg
Stephen Bennett wrote:
> This would be, in essence, a formal definition of the layout of the
> tree, and the format of and assumptions made by every file contained
> within it.
I'm all for it.
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.or
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:04:39 -0400
Luis Francisco Araujo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like the idea. This would be some kind of portage-tree standard?
This would be, in essence, a formal definition of the layout of the
tree, and the format of and assumptions made by every file contained
within
Stephen Bennett wrote:
> Continuing in the series of issues raised during the previous package
> manager discussions, I'd like to continue by mentioning the tree
> format. At present, it isn't defined beyond "what the current portage
> supports", which is frankly a fairly silly way to do things. Fo
15 matches
Mail list logo
