| 1 |
The Gentoo Council/Gentoo Infra only needs to release one API for all |
| 2 |
package managers, with all the procedures, how to do stuff standards, |
| 3 |
quality assurance stuff, blabla... |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Create that documentation for what Gentoo and their devels really need |
| 6 |
and the package manager developers do what they want. If they want to |
| 7 |
do what the docs say... great, it can be a "certified package |
| 8 |
manager". If not, well... too bad. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
The best GPL package manager should be the primary with the |
| 11 |
dependencies that solar said in this discussion. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
PS: I'm kinda new at this but I'm a little sad when reading some emails... |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
On 5/23/06, Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> wrote: |
| 16 |
> On Tuesday 23 May 2006 10:00, Thilo Bangert wrote: |
| 17 |
> > > However as a member of the existing portage team and also as a council |
| 18 |
> > > member I would reject (and I would encourage[read work really hard at |
| 19 |
> > > it] other council members to do the same) any GLEP which allowed or |
| 20 |
> > > promoted the primary pkg mgt system being hosted offsite and maintained |
| 21 |
> > > by non devs at the juncture in time. I joined our portage team because |
| 22 |
> > > I realized that our pkg mgt is not a toy and can't be treated as such. |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> > but it's no holy grail either! |
| 25 |
> > |
| 26 |
> > to be honest, it is my impression that the portage team is a blocker of |
| 27 |
> > innovation here.... demanding some kind of monopoly on the package |
| 28 |
> > manger. |
| 29 |
> > |
| 30 |
> > i would really like to come back to a discussion based on technical merit. |
| 31 |
> > we constantly replace lesser solutions with better solutions - if/when |
| 32 |
> > its time for portage to go, it _will_ go! |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> I would suggest you to take a look at the portage code and try to do something |
| 35 |
> as simple as split up the portage.py initialisation code into functional |
| 36 |
> parts. The fact that this is almost impossible to do without risking serious |
| 37 |
> instability shows the state of portage. |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> Also if you look at portage, it has been understood even before Daniel left, |
| 40 |
> that portage needed to be rewritten from the ground up. I do not think there |
| 41 |
> is anyone who wants to keep portage for portage's sake. |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> Otherwise. It is time for portage to go. Now we have to wait for a proper |
| 44 |
> replacement with proven stability. |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> Paul |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> -- |
| 49 |
> Paul de Vrieze |
| 50 |
> Gentoo Developer |
| 51 |
> Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 52 |
> Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
-- |
| 58 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives