Mark Loeser wrote:
> As I see it, the tree is for Portage, and it is nice if it works with
> other package managers (such as pkgcore or paludis),

If anything, I see it the other way. By far our largest and most 
valuable piece of code is the tree, and Portage exists to provide an 
environment in which it can be of use.

 > but I do not
> believe we should be making changes, of any kind, just to improve how
> their programs work.  I have no problems with rewrites of Portage, but
> making changes to the live tree for something other than Portage does
> not seem to make sense to me.  If we decide to recognize rewrites as
> official alternatives, then making changes makes sense, but until that
> point, I don't believe it does.

If someone were wanting to change existing parts of the tree for no 
other reason than compatibility with another package manager, I'd agree 
with you. I don't, however, see a problem in adding a self-contained 
piece of code that has no effect on the rest of the tree.

-- 
gentoo-qa@g.o mailing list