1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
3 |
|
4 |
Duncan wrote: |
5 |
> However, now that PMS is finally about to provide what should be a |
6 |
> definitive description of current generation package behavior, with the |
7 |
> announced intention to update this with new versions into the future as |
8 |
> required, the dependence on portage as the reference will soon be going |
9 |
> away. The announced intention for this, among other things, is to allow |
10 |
> alternate package managers, such that it can still be clear when it's the |
11 |
> package broken and when it's the package manager. |
12 |
|
13 |
From what I've read of the PMS, it currently only describes the input |
14 |
format it would accept (namely the format for ebuild files and their |
15 |
contents). This question can be delayed until the PMS defines the |
16 |
operation of the package manager, including but not limited to the |
17 |
recording of installed package data. If the package managers do not |
18 |
agree on which packages are installed or how to uninstall them, then |
19 |
they are not yet interchangeable. |
20 |
|
21 |
I apologize if this point has already been raised elsewhere in the |
22 |
thread. I try not to get involved in threads like this, but |
23 |
accidentally read a reply and thought this might be a valuable response. |
24 |
|
25 |
Mike 5:) |
26 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
27 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux) |
28 |
|
29 |
iD8DBQFGD6/0u7rWomwgFXoRAiT9AKCV/+YGLba3owSWEt/cbOPbyC3YrgCfbboE |
30 |
+oqnTwPBGzD7ORY15VwOxoo= |
31 |
=I3ta |
32 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
33 |
-- |
34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |