| 1 |
> However as a member of the existing portage team and also as a council |
| 2 |
> member I would reject (and I would encourage[read work really hard at |
| 3 |
> it] other council members to do the same) any GLEP which allowed or |
| 4 |
> promoted the primary pkg mgt system being hosted offsite and maintained |
| 5 |
> by non devs at the juncture in time. I joined our portage team because |
| 6 |
> I realized that our pkg mgt is not a toy and can't be treated as such. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
but it's no holy grail either! |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
to be honest, it is my impression that the portage team is a blocker of |
| 11 |
innovation here.... demanding some kind of monopoly on the package |
| 12 |
manger. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
i would really like to come back to a discussion based on technical merit. |
| 15 |
we constantly replace lesser solutions with better solutions - if/when |
| 16 |
its time for portage to go, it _will_ go! |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
regards |
| 19 |
bangert |
Archives