| 1 |
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 08:04:36PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 11:51:16 -0700 Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> |
| 3 |
> wrote: |
| 4 |
> | On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 07:34:16PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> | > On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:20:29 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <carlo@g.o> |
| 6 |
> | > wrote: |
| 7 |
> | > | On Thursday 18 May 2006 20:02, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 8 |
> | > | >It's kinda like this: |
| 9 |
> | > | |
| 10 |
> | > | Stop making such odd and wrong comparisons. The package manager is |
| 11 |
> | > | part of what defines a distribution, choosing a shell is the users |
| 12 |
> | > | choice. If you want to make the package manager matter of choice, |
| 13 |
> | > | start your own distribution. |
| 14 |
> | > |
| 15 |
> | > How many package managers does Debian have? What about Fedora? |
| 16 |
> | |
| 17 |
> | They all support the exact same format. |
| 18 |
> | |
| 19 |
> | You're changing the format, dropping what you dislike- they also |
| 20 |
> | support the same installed pkgs backend last I looked, again, not the |
| 21 |
> | case for paludis. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> No, they have a common subset of shared operations, just as Paludis and |
| 24 |
> Portage do. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
They have a common subset of shared *high level* operations, |
| 27 |
resolution differing dependant on the high level component used. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Note I said 'high level', not low level, ie the format (which is what |
| 30 |
my point was). |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
This is why despite most distro level bastardizations of the rpm spec, |
| 33 |
things still work- they're relying on a common tool/lib to handle low |
| 34 |
level details, rather then reimplementing them (and changing them) as |
| 35 |
paludis does. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Simply put, others have a seperation between high level functionality |
| 38 |
(resolution, fetching, etc), and the low level format- high level |
| 39 |
differs elsewhere (leading to some fun issues like apt-rpm's inability |
| 40 |
to install N versions of a pkg), but the format bits are still common |
| 41 |
to that distro (rather then reimplemented by each). |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
So no... not a valid counterarg- paludis relationship to portage |
| 44 |
(namely, we're going to do what we think is best format level despite |
| 45 |
what portage does) directly contradicts your arguement. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
~harring |
Archives