List Archive: gentoo-osx
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
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
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"?
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list