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: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
Subject: Re: Support of other package managers
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 19:54:53 -0700
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mark Loeser wrote:
> 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)

I don't see any reason to include support for a non-official package manager in the official gentoo repo either (given that they can host their own repository and include whatever they want).  For the sake of interoperability, I hope that the developers of these separate package managers can come together and agree on some specifications, but that's a topic for another list...

> 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.

Yeah, it seems like this type of decision needs to be made by the council, and I hope that they decide against it.

Zac
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEapB8/ejvha5XGaMRAvJOAJ9D9bkg7UoMynFNND+S8UJfLurDlwCeLeJH
EzwX3OXW21TjqytMynWfwUE=
=aGr0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-qa@g.o mailing list


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
Re: Support of other package managers
-- Mark Loeser
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.