[gentoo-dev] Re: Paludis and Profiles

[Duncan]

Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> posted
20060516225638.GB29839@nightcrawler, excerpted below, on  Tue, 16 May 2006
15:56:38 -0700:

> This whole thing seems a bit dumb; it's not that far off from someone
> coming along with a non-compliant c compiler, and arguing that they're
> still compliant, they just dropped the stupid stuff they didn't like.
>
> They're still incompatible...

Interesting you bring that up.  There are C standards independent of any
individual implementation.  A compiler that doesn't comply with those
standards is noncompliant, by definition.  OTOH, a compiler that doesn't
comply with J Random implementation may or may not be standards compliant,
because J Random implementation doesn't define the standard.

The point argued here is that there isn't such an implementation
independent standard for a Gentoo package manager.  Arguing that the
standard is portage is hardly different than arguing that the standard for
certain network environments is... Well, let's just say there's a certain
anti-trust case going on about it at the moment.  How can one possibly
write to such a "standard"?

Now, I'm not saying the current profile proposal is something I support,
I'll deal with that in a different reply, but let's be clear, there are
standards, and there is portage, and portage does not a standard define. 
If one is going to argue that a standard must be supported, that standard
should exist as more than the code of a single implementation.  A standard
that doesn't exist as such cannot be a reasonable requirement for
support.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list