| 1 |
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Grobian wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > IMHO trying to define progressive or conservative would be futile |
| 4 |
> > until we get to play with the portage rewrite (domains and prefixes). |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Not completely agree on this. It's nice for me to know what the others |
| 7 |
> consider 'progressive' to mean, as I now see it as a "shut-up with your |
| 8 |
> collision-protect crap and just do it" profile, which I am for sure not |
| 9 |
> interested in, nor see the use of at the moment. I like to see the big |
| 10 |
> picture of things where possible. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
If you take the long view, and assume that we will get prefixes sooner |
| 13 |
than later, then devs should be aiming for _maximum_ collisions, since |
| 14 |
from a darwin point of view, that means better interoperability with |
| 15 |
Apple's open source work. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
If you take a compromise, you might end up with fewer collisions in the |
| 18 |
short term, but you make it harder for Gentoo/Darwin and "progressive" to |
| 19 |
interoperate with Gentoo/macos and Apple. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
That is why I argued against moving the perl executable, for example. And |
| 22 |
it is also why I argued for stabling packages with collisions. I was |
| 23 |
simply taking the long view, and trying to avoid rework for the |
| 24 |
gentoo/darwin project. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
As for the "conservative" profile, it doesn't have many users, and will |
| 27 |
not have until we get prefixes, so why optimise for "collision-protect"? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-f |
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |
Archives