| 1 |
Le lundi 11 juin 2012 à 19:48 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh a écrit : |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 20:41:37 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > No, your goal is to provide a distribution. Gentoo has repeatedly |
| 5 |
> > > shot itself in the foot, leg, groin etc by favouring short-term |
| 6 |
> > > hacks over a well thought out, validated, self-enforcing design. |
| 7 |
> > > Right now nearly all of the package manager work is on paying off |
| 8 |
> > > previously incurred technical debt, and in the mean time you're |
| 9 |
> > > busy adding to it. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > The problem here is that we (or, at least, I) are a bit unsure about |
| 12 |
> > how this could be handled better and, then, try to use that better |
| 13 |
> > way in the future. If you (or any) have some suggestion, it would be |
| 14 |
> > nice :) |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> It is handled better by working out what exactly the problem is, and if |
| 17 |
> you can't implement it nicely using existing features, then not |
| 18 |
> implementing it at all until you have suitable features. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Sorry to make this old thread pop up again but, no, it is not acceptable |
| 22 |
to not ship packages like webkit just because you dislike the solution |
| 23 |
we used to workaround a well known problem in ebuild packaging. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
FTR, this solution may have problems, that you are free to highlight, |
| 26 |
but it is has been carefully thought out to not be too much of a burden |
| 27 |
for devs and users alike. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
When someone comes up with a solution that is accepted for PMS, we will |
| 30 |
be more than happy to switch to it. So please stop complaining and do |
| 31 |
what you are best known for, find a solution that can fit PMS. TIA. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@g.o> |
| 35 |
Gentoo |
Archives