Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-qa
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-qa: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-qa@g.o
From: Mark Loeser <halcy0n@g.o>
Subject: Re: Support of other package managers
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 19:57:13 -0400
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> said:
> Yeah, I think what's really needed is a specification of what is allowed in
> gentoo's official portage tree.  Let's take "per-package use.mask" (bug
> 96368) as an example.  It could be implemented as package.use.mask or as
> package.mask + use deps.  Which will it be?  Will paludis, pkgcore, and portage
> all handle this functionality the same way or not?  If we're going to allow new
> features such as this into the official portage tree, we need to make sure that
> they conform to a specification that everyone has agreed upon.

This is the exact problem I'm trying to address.  You'll never get all
of the projects to agree, since they all want to go in slightly
different directions and do different things.  All three are great
ideas, but we should only support the one that is official for Gentoo,
and not make any changes to the tree.  (Note: changes here is any
modification or addition of files in the tree for the sole purpose of
working with an alternate package manager)

Either way, I think this is something we should hold off on for now, and
have the council decide upon.  We shouldn't just make these changes
without having some discussion taking place (the flamewar on g-dev@ is
not a discussion, and is only a small minority of people giving their
two cents).

Whatever the decision is, the addition of another package manager makes
QA harder to do since we have to consider all of them.  Adding a new
package manager and saying we don't support it, nor are we sure if we
will ever support it, does not seem acceptable at all to me.  The
decision should be made if we plan on supporting it so we can work on
actually supporting it, or if this should be a completely separate
project and they can work on their own to make changes to ebuilds which
support their own functionality.

-- 
Mark Loeser   -   Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting qa toolchain x86)
email         -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
                  mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web           -   http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/
                  http://www.halcy0n.com
Attachment:
pgp4DyXg3swm4.pgp (PGP signature)
Replies:
Re: Support of other package managers
-- Kevin F. Quinn
Re: Support of other package managers
-- Mike Frysinger
Re: Support of other package managers
-- Zac Medico
References:
Support of other package managers
-- Mark Loeser
Re: Support of other package managers
-- Stephen Bennett
Re: Support of other package managers
-- Seemant Kulleen
Re: Support of other package managers
-- Zac Medico
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-qa: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Support of other package managers
Next by thread:
Re: Support of other package managers
Previous by date:
Re: Support of other package managers
Next by date:
Re: Support of other package managers


Updated Jun 17, 2009

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-qa mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.