| 1 |
Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Monday 22 May 2006 17:29, Grant Goodyear wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Jon Portnoy wrote: [Mon May 22 2006, 09:38:23AM CDT] |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>>> On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 09:21:34AM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>> Please don't change your wording on that. The feel really strongly |
| 7 |
>>>> about the primary pkg manager of Gentoo needing remain under the |
| 8 |
>>>> full control of Gentoo Linux. |
| 9 |
>>> Agreed, I'm of the opinion it would be inappropriate to let an |
| 10 |
>>> outside entity steer our primary package manager. |
| 11 |
>> I'm not sure I understand why. After all, mandriva, suse, ubuntu, and |
| 12 |
>> many others have survived quite well. More to the point, though, it's |
| 13 |
>> not clear to me what awful things happen if Gentoo does not own the |
| 14 |
>> package manager code, as long as that code is under a reasonable |
| 15 |
>> license. Suppose that such a package manager did became a Gentoo |
| 16 |
>> default, and at some point the program diverged from what Gentoo really |
| 17 |
>> wanted; wouldn't Gentoo then just fork the package manager? Am I |
| 18 |
>> missing something obvious? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> There are serious costs involved with forking something. For gentoo this |
| 21 |
> would include image problems by being seen as "evil" forkers. Also |
| 22 |
> mandriva, suse, ubuntu etc. distinguish themselves from the pack in which |
| 23 |
> packages are offered in which configuration. Gentoo differs from that in |
| 24 |
> that users can determine the configuration. The package manager directly |
| 25 |
> influences the freedom available for the users. Making binary and source |
| 26 |
> distros not easilly comparable. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Paul |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
So what you really meant to say was, "I don't have a good answer, so |
| 32 |
I'll make something up which makes no sense." |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-Steve |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives