| 1 |
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 19:57, Mark Loeser wrote: |
| 2 |
> Whatever the decision is, the addition of another package manager makes |
| 3 |
> QA harder to do since we have to consider all of them. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
not really ... you have one official manager and QA tests with that |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> The |
| 8 |
> decision should be made if we plan on supporting it so we can work on |
| 9 |
> actually supporting it, or if this should be a completely separate |
| 10 |
> project and they can work on their own to make changes to ebuilds which |
| 11 |
> support their own functionality. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
why do we have to support it ? this seems like a perfectly good application |
| 14 |
of EAPI that the portage peeps keep talking about |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
if you have a hard dcument of what it means to be compatible with EAPI=0, then |
| 17 |
i see no reason to block any package manager that conforms to it |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
whatever the latest EAPI version that the official package manager (portage is |
| 20 |
the current official one) supports is what the tree must conform to |
| 21 |
-mike |
Archives