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