1 |
On 2007.12.15 06:46, Steve Long wrote: |
2 |
> Just a quick post re something that was raised in the council |
3 |
> meeting. |
4 |
> |
5 |
|
6 |
Steve, |
7 |
|
8 |
The offical package manager is portage. If another package manager does |
9 |
something different to portage - even if it fixes a bug in portage, by |
10 |
definition, its not compliant. |
11 |
|
12 |
The exisiting PMS have been arrived at by documenting what portage |
13 |
does, which is itself a moving target. |
14 |
No PMS is likely to be endorsed until Portage stays still long enough |
15 |
to document it, check it and ratifiy it, unless some arbitary portage |
16 |
version is chosen to document. |
17 |
|
18 |
Any such PMS won't be very useful, as portage will have moved on |
19 |
meanwhile. A PMS will only be useful when its adopted and maintained by |
20 |
the portage devs, when portage will become a reference inplementaion of |
21 |
the spec. I don't see that happening, since they don't need such a |
22 |
document. |
23 |
|
24 |
It reminds me of AMD, Cyrix and others trying to produce a x86 CPU |
25 |
clone. Most got close but not close enough as they failed to reproduce |
26 |
the bugs in the silicon that were in some cases needed for normal |
27 |
operation. AMD persisted and got a reasonable market share. Intel |
28 |
didn't make it easy, releasing new CPUs from time to time. |
29 |
|
30 |
At least developers wanting a PMS can read the portage source code to |
31 |
see what it does. |
32 |
|
33 |
Regards, |
34 |
|
35 |
Roy Bamford |
36 |
(NeddySeagoon) |
37 |
-- |
38 |
gentoo-project@g.o mailing list |