Re: [gentoo-dev] Alternative Gentoo package managers discussion request (for the council)

[Ned Ludd]

Request for a decision acknowledged.
Fwding on mail to the rest of the council to ensure they see it.

On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 17:38 -0400, Mark Loeser wrote:
> As the latest long thread has shown, there seems to be a split (it is hard to
> tell exactly) on whether or not alternative package managers, that support
> Gentoo ebuilds to some degree, should be added to the tree and supported.
> Supported in this case means having their own profiles which may or may not
> work with Portage.  There are currently a few different Portage rewrites, or
> alternatives, whatever you want to call them, and all of them have their own
> unique features being added to them which make them incompatible with Portage.
> Some don't even emulate Portage's "broken" behaviour which could also cause
> QA problems for us if we add the package to the tree.  If a package is in the
> tree, it is implicitly stating that we are going to offer some level of
> support for that application, and it increases workload for everyone that
> may have an ebuild that works with one package manager and not another.
>
> Therefore, I am requesting at the next Council meeting that they discuss
> and decide on how we want to handle problems like this in general.  This
> is not going to be the last time that someone wants to add their rewrite/
> alternative of Portage to the tree.  It should be decided if it is really
> in the best interests of Gentoo, its users, and developers to be adding
> these new managers to our own tree, instead of having them host their
> altered work on their own infrastructure.
>
> As the QA lead, I am requesting that until the Council convenes and decides
> on how we should proceed, that we not add anything else to the tree
> for the sole reason of supporting another package manager's features.
> This includes profiles or any other packages.  This will reduce
> headaches for all of us, and hopefully cut down on needless arguments
> that get us no where.
>
> Thanks,
>
-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list