Alin Nastac wrote:
Marius Mauch wrote:
CVS doesn't support symlinks.
But subversion does ;)
Doesn't help here.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Marius Mauch wrote:
>
> CVS doesn't support symlinks.
>
But subversion does ;)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
David Klaftenegger wrote:
Georgi Georgiev wrote:
Would it be inappropriate to start bitching (again) about a flat tree
where each package can go in multiple categories?
So now, that I've read all messages in this thread, I needed a point to
start at..
I guess my approach isn't a way to go, but I
David Klaftenegger wrote:
>>>Why not just create a symlink to the package in the category it *also*
>>>should be in?
[snip]
>>It's a better approach then tagging it into the metadata imo, since it
>>forces unique cat/package still. Won't play nice if the tree's fs
>>doesn't like symlinks though
Brian Harring wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 10:28:48PM +0200, David Klaftenegger wrote:
>>Why not just create a symlink to the package in the category it *also*
>>should be in?
>>
>>For example, net-mail/mutt could be a symlink to ../mail-client/mutt,
>>allowing to find it in both categories.
>>
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 10:28:48PM +0200, David Klaftenegger wrote:
> Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> > Would it be inappropriate to start bitching (again) about a flat tree
> > where each package can go in multiple categories?
>
> So now, that I've read all messages in this thread, I needed a point to
Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> Would it be inappropriate to start bitching (again) about a flat tree
> where each package can go in multiple categories?
So now, that I've read all messages in this thread, I needed a point to
start at..
I guess my approach isn't a way to go, but I can't find the reason
