skvidal(a)phy.duke.edu (seth vidal) writes:
> >> > I'm not talking about using the distro provided
comps.xml - I'm
> >> > talking about using that format for specifying the packages
> >> > installed in the chroots.
> >> What would be the advantage of this? You will have to maintain yet
> >> another configuration file with an ugly format (XML), and it will not
> >> work with other depsolvers like apt or smartpm.
> > Right, I'm having trouble trying to figure out why we're bothering with
> > support for other depsolvers at this time. We just need to build now.
> When we want to build now, I do not understand why code for new
> technology (comps.xml) shall be added, while existing technology
> (manual package-lists) is already working...
comps.xml isn't new technology. All the support is there.
mach2 has already support for specifying the location of the comps.xml
file? And the comps.xml files for the buildroots exist already?