I have an ebuild version of the RTLinux-Free modified kernel and modules. In addition I have a modified version of the Enhanced Machine Control (EMC) project, and expect to have a couple of other PD projects ebuild versions that are RTL specific. To conform to historic configurations of RTL, I defined a new category of rtlinux-base with rtlfree-kernel, rtlfree-modules, rtlfree-emc, together with -dev- versions for non-standard/experemental versions. The reason it was originally organized this way was to accomidate managing rtlpro versions within the same general directory structure, and deal with a number of RTL ported apps (similar to how KDE deals with classes of apps). Looking at the sys-kernel structure, I note that it may be more appropriate to place it under sys-kernel/rtlfree-sources and sys-kernel/rtlpro-sources, with something else to deal with various ported programs. May I get some guidence on naming conventions so I can act accordingly? Thanks and best regards, EBo --
I'd suggest that you choose and post your work as it is. If you can find a developer to pick it up, we can refine details like this at a later stage.
I'm a little confused as to your comment about finding a developer... I am the developer. I finialy did give up and just posted it <see bug now aliased to 65420> I have a number of upgrades, bug fixes, etc., to the original post. I gave up on following up on this because I never heard back from anyone, the original site that was to post the tarballs have a weird registration to download... If someone will help resolve the issues then I will move forward with this otherwise I intend to simply move on since this project has been nothing but headaches.
By developer I mean a Gentoo developer. Anything in portage must be owned by one or more Gentoo developers, who have the responsibility for keeping it up to date and fixing bugs. We can't just pick up user submissions, stick them in the tree, and leave them - its not that simple. I'll continue on the other bug.
