| 1 |
On Monday 12 June 2006 22:58, Stephen Bennett wrote: |
| 2 |
> I would like to think that this proposal addresses most of the concerns |
| 3 |
> raised in the last thread -- it implies nothing about support for any |
| 4 |
> other package manager, and introduces nothing that could cause problems |
| 5 |
> for Portage users, while still allowing alternative package managers to |
| 6 |
> use the tree without needing Portage installed. |
| 7 |
This seems to be more acceptable. The implicit unstated dependencies on Python |
| 8 |
are something that will also be interesting to find out (especially for |
| 9 |
packages building Python modules automagically). |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
As far as no change is requested to final users and that the information |
| 12 |
reported on bugs can be safely recognized as belong to one or the other |
| 13 |
package manager, it seems sane. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
-- |
| 16 |
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/ |
| 17 |
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE |
Archives