Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Todd Berman <tberman@×××××××××.org>
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Several portage trees
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 18:21:24
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Several portage trees by Peter Fein
On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Peter Fein wrote:

> > > > > > I think it solves a lot of complains about flexibility and edging of Gentoo. > > > > > > > What complaints ? Is it so hard to download an ebuild in put it in your > > local overlay ? The extra step required does make sure you are aware > > that you are using non-approved ebuilds. > > I'd be aware I'd be using non-approved ebuilds if I set those vars in the first > place & portage warned/notified me which repository it was installing from. > This architecture rocks - restricting it to approved packages only deprives > folks of a really great tool (wow, I'm sounding awfully "software wants to be > free" today...).
I'd have to disagree with you here, I think it would be a bad idea to have something like this set up. What would happen if 'proper' gentoo has package foo version 1.0 and it depends on package bar 0.5, and breaks with anything newer. Then one of your new rsync's puts in package bar 0.7 and breaks the 'official' foo package for you. Just seems like a lose lose situation. The advantage of gentoo and portage is your are being told that these packages SHOULD work together, and if they dont, put in a bug, and we will figure out why. And remember, if you need a new package, just install it from source, its not that hard :) --Todd -- gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Several portage trees Peter Fein <pfein@×××××.com>