1 |
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On 09/25/2011 06:57 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: |
3 |
>> But neither portage, nor the portage tree, nor any of our branding are |
4 |
>> shipped with ChromeOS. Hence it's as much a Gentoo install as $company |
5 |
>> that uses portage to build $image for their embedded device, but |
6 |
>> doesn't leave any trace of Gentoo behind. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> So what? I work on Gentoo for the benefit of myself and others |
9 |
> (including Chrome OS devs), not because I want people to see Gentoo |
10 |
> branding, or have more people identify themselves as "Gentoo users." |
11 |
> |
12 |
|
13 |
I never meant to say that it's NOT beneficial to Gentoo. I've stated |
14 |
publicly, numerous times since the very beginning in emails, on IRC, |
15 |
twitter, etc. that the fact that ChromeOS uses Portage is and will be |
16 |
quite beneficial to us in many ways. If you recall my recent email to |
17 |
gentoo-core, I specifically talked about this. |
18 |
|
19 |
Please don't take my pedantic definition-wrangling as anything but pedantry. |
20 |
|
21 |
All I've been saying is that it's *misleading* to users for us to say |
22 |
that Google uses Gentoo on its Chrome Books. Google uses Gentoo's |
23 |
portage tools to build ChromeOS, which is hence arguably a |
24 |
*derivative* of Gentoo, but not really Gentoo. |
25 |
|
26 |
This is precisely what Mike said in his last email, and resolved his |
27 |
initial statement for me, which was ambiguous from my PoV. |
28 |
|
29 |
-- |
30 |
~Nirbheek Chauhan |
31 |
|
32 |
Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team |