| 1 |
On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 16:26 +0000, Thomas Cort wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 15:48:04 -0400 |
| 3 |
> Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > I also recommend that the package is masked in all |
| 5 |
> > Gentoo profiles where a release is built against, since again, it is |
| 6 |
> > 100% incompatible and upstream has now said that they have no intentions |
| 7 |
> > on making it compatible. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> rpm, stow, and dpkg are 100% incompatible with portage and I'm fairly certain that upstream has no intentions of making them compatible, yet they are in the tree and stable on many arches. Are you also suggesting that we mask them too? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
What do package managers that don't claim, in any way, to be |
| 12 |
portage-compatible have to do with *this* package manager that *does*? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
One of the goals of this package is to be a portage |
| 15 |
replacement/alternative. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Why do people *insist* on trying to add so many levels of indirection |
| 18 |
into their "discussions"? Do you really think that attempting to |
| 19 |
confuse a situation makes it any easier to reach a solution? Are you |
| 20 |
arguing for the sake of arguing? Perhaps you just like to hear yourself |
| 21 |
talk? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 25 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
| 26 |
x86 Architecture Team |
| 27 |
Games - Developer |
| 28 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives