Gentoo Archives: gentoo-osx

From: Finn Thain <fthain@××××××××××××××××.au>
To: gentoo-osx@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-osx] xorg-x11
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 09:00:54
Message-Id: Pine.LNX.4.63.0510121828050.4138@loopy.telegraphics.com.au
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-osx] xorg-x11 by Grobian
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Grobian wrote:

> > IMHO trying to define progressive or conservative would be futile > > until we get to play with the portage rewrite (domains and prefixes). > > Not completely agree on this. It's nice for me to know what the others > consider 'progressive' to mean, as I now see it as a "shut-up with your > collision-protect crap and just do it" profile, which I am for sure not > interested in, nor see the use of at the moment. I like to see the big > picture of things where possible.
If you take the long view, and assume that we will get prefixes sooner than later, then devs should be aiming for _maximum_ collisions, since from a darwin point of view, that means better interoperability with Apple's open source work. If you take a compromise, you might end up with fewer collisions in the short term, but you make it harder for Gentoo/Darwin and "progressive" to interoperate with Gentoo/macos and Apple. That is why I argued against moving the perl executable, for example. And it is also why I argued for stabling packages with collisions. I was simply taking the long view, and trying to avoid rework for the gentoo/darwin project. As for the "conservative" profile, it doesn't have many users, and will not have until we get prefixes, so why optimise for "collision-protect"? -f -- gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-osx] xorg-x11 Grobian <grobian@g.o>