| 1 |
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 15:47, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:34:49 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
> | Once that is supported, I'm also sure that those people involved will |
| 6 |
> | be more than happy to fix their ebuilds to use those features. I do |
| 7 |
> | agree with them though that the distribution should not be held back |
| 8 |
> | by missing features in portage. Especially since those features have |
| 9 |
> | been missing (recognized as such) for ages. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> So until then, it's perfectly OK to screw over our users and fellow |
| 12 |
> developers by committing any arbitrary mess to the tree and claiming |
| 13 |
> that it's alright because Portage doesn't offer a perfect alternative? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
No, not in an arbitrary way. Those fixes should be discussed, and the path |
| 16 |
of least problems chosen. Waiting on portage to catch on however has |
| 17 |
shown to be a dead end. One of the reasons that webapp-config was |
| 18 |
developed is exactly because of the fact that portage does not offer |
| 19 |
certain features (although I don't know whether portage should offer |
| 20 |
these). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
What I mean is that if portage is a limiting factor, we should try to find |
| 23 |
a solution that allows incorporation of the package or feature instead of |
| 24 |
not having it. Doing so is only alright when it has been properly |
| 25 |
discussed. It is not alright to just introduce mess. There is indeed no |
| 26 |
strict line between the two. That's where QA comes in. To make the |
| 27 |
judgement. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Paul |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 33 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 34 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 35 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives