There's an updated, pre-built copy of current PMS at:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~spb/pms.pdf
And source at:
http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/pms.git
And "PMS for people who haven't been paying attention" at:
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_4ac035019b5264e5b9c176
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
There's an updated, pre-built copy of current PMS at:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~spb/pms.pdf
Thanks for keeping up with this.
* 174335: Some ebuild use FEATURES. Can we get them to stop doing that,
or do we have to force package managers to emulate it?
We seriously
Rémi Cardona wrote:
> What would be the point of such a change? What problem are you trying to
> solve or to improve?
>
First and foremost to give an environment wherein people can write their
installation scripts using the language they are most comfortable with.
Secondly efficiency; in the case
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:32:41 -0600
Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > There's an updated, pre-built copy of current PMS at:
> >
> > http://dev.gentoo.org/~spb/pms.pdf
>
> Thanks for keeping up with this.
>
> > * 174335: Some ebuild use FEATURES. Can we get the
Luca Barbato wrote:
> Steve Long wrote:
>> Something that's been discussed on IRC is the idea of a .pbuild file,
>> written in Python. I can also think of .cbuild (C) .Cbuild (C++) .sbuild
>> (Scheme) .hbuild (Haskell) and .jbuild (guess;) as being of immediate
>> use, (although I accept I might b
> Come on lxnay, who are you trying to fool here?
Oh for crying out loud, Pierre. How paranoid!
Luca - questioning Gentoo's HR shouldn't elicit insults about pigs and
trolls. This behavior suggests you are too easy to piss off in the
first place. I'm not going to bother with pointwise pseudo-
Steve Long a écrit :
First and foremost to give an environment wherein people can write their
installation scripts using the language they are most comfortable with.
If bash is not "easy" or straightforward enough for what you are trying
to achieve, then I'd say the package is broken (ie, hand
All,
This is a formal notice to everyone that OpenRC will be hitting the
Gentoo tree sooner rather then later. I would like to see *ALL* arch
teams give the current code a whirl on their systems, which is available
via the layman module "openrc".
I would also like to give the docs team a cha
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:59:01 +
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rémi Cardona wrote:
>
> > What would be the point of such a change? What problem are you
> > trying to solve or to improve?
> >
> Secondly efficiency; in the case of a pbuild it could be run from
> within the PM; for somet
Rémi Cardona wrote:
> Steve Long a écrit :
>> First and foremost to give an environment wherein people can write their
>> installation scripts using the language they are most comfortable with.
>
> If bash is not "easy" or straightforward enough for what you are trying
> to achieve, then I'd say
Doug Goldstein wrote:
All,
This is a formal notice to everyone that OpenRC will be hitting the
Gentoo tree sooner rather then later. I would like to see *ALL* arch
teams give the current code a whirl on their systems, which is available
via the layman module "openrc".
I would also like to g
11 matches
Mail list logo
