Re: [gentoo-dev] Alternative Gentoo package managers discussion request (for the council)

[Christel Dahlskjaer]

On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 00:23 +0100, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 17:38 -0400, Mark Loeser wrote:
> > As the latest long thread has shown, there seems to be a split (it is hard to
> > tell exactly) on whether or not alternative package managers, that support
> > Gentoo ebuilds to some degree, should be added to the tree and supported.
> > Supported in this case means having their own profiles which may or may not
> > work with Portage.  There are currently a few different Portage rewrites, or
> > alternatives, whatever you want to call them, and all of them have their own
> > unique features being added to them which make them incompatible with Portage.
> > Some don't even emulate Portage's "broken" behaviour which could also cause
> > QA problems for us if we add the package to the tree.  If a package is in the
> > tree, it is implicitly stating that we are going to offer some level of
> > support for that application, and it increases workload for everyone that
> > may have an ebuild that works with one package manager and not another.
> >
> > Therefore, I am requesting at the next Council meeting that they discuss
> > and decide on how we want to handle problems like this in general.  This
> > is not going to be the last time that someone wants to add their rewrite/
> > alternative of Portage to the tree.  It should be decided if it is really
> > in the best interests of Gentoo, its users, and developers to be adding
> > these new managers to our own tree, instead of having them host their
> > altered work on their own infrastructure.
> >
> > As the QA lead, I am requesting that until the Council convenes and decides
> > on how we should proceed, that we not add anything else to the tree
> > for the sole reason of supporting another package manager's features.
> > This includes profiles or any other packages.  This will reduce
> > headaches for all of us, and hopefully cut down on needless arguments
> > that get us no where.
>
> Good call Mark. I second this request.

Maybe I should have ellaborated on that, I do believe that the current
thread has been somewhat educational for a 'newbie' like myself, but I
also think that for the future it would be beneficial for people to know
how to go about similar. :)


-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list