Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: better support for binary packages
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 13:30:18
Message-Id: pan.2009.05.26.13.29.49@cox.net
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: better support for binary packages by Philipp Riegger
1 Philipp Riegger <lists@××××××××××××.de> posted
2 1243335643.9661.46.camel@×××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××.de, excerpted
3 below, on Tue, 26 May 2009 13:00:43 +0200:
4
5 > Bit it seems to be quite an uninteresting topic, since the people most
6 > affected by it (Gentoo developers) did not join the conversation, yet.
7 > Maybe I should take this to gentoo-server@ and gentoo-portage@, it might
8 > fit there.
9
10 Agreed on the participation observation and taking it elsewhere, both.
11 I'd think the gentoo-portage-dev list (which I also read) would be a good
12 place for hopefully more discussion, with people actually interested. I
13 still think it's likely better, at least at first, as a separate "helper"
14 app, but a number of such helpers have ultimately been integrated into
15 either portage itself, or into gentoolkit over time.
16
17 Also, by doing it that way rather than by trying to change Gentoo as a
18 whole, you avoid the prospect of /years/ of debate that has occurred over
19 GLEP55 and with it 54, which also set about to change the package naming
20 conventions, in this case for ebuilds. And given that PMS specifically
21 defines binary package formats as out of its domain, I really do see that
22 as the more practical approach... unless of course you /want/ to debate
23 it for /years/ before anything gets done. =:^\
24
25 Then as it proves its value, it'll ultimately become the de-facto
26 standard and be integrated into some future version of PMS or whatever.
27
28 --
29 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
30 "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
31 and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman