1 |
On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 17:38 -0400, Mark Loeser wrote: |
2 |
> As the latest long thread has shown, there seems to be a split (it is hard to |
3 |
> tell exactly) on whether or not alternative package managers, that support |
4 |
> Gentoo ebuilds to some degree, should be added to the tree and supported. |
5 |
> Supported in this case means having their own profiles which may or may not |
6 |
> work with Portage. There are currently a few different Portage rewrites, or |
7 |
> alternatives, whatever you want to call them, and all of them have their own |
8 |
> unique features being added to them which make them incompatible with Portage. |
9 |
> Some don't even emulate Portage's "broken" behaviour which could also cause |
10 |
> QA problems for us if we add the package to the tree. If a package is in the |
11 |
> tree, it is implicitly stating that we are going to offer some level of |
12 |
> support for that application, and it increases workload for everyone that |
13 |
> may have an ebuild that works with one package manager and not another. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Therefore, I am requesting at the next Council meeting that they discuss |
16 |
> and decide on how we want to handle problems like this in general. This |
17 |
> is not going to be the last time that someone wants to add their rewrite/ |
18 |
> alternative of Portage to the tree. It should be decided if it is really |
19 |
> in the best interests of Gentoo, its users, and developers to be adding |
20 |
> these new managers to our own tree, instead of having them host their |
21 |
> altered work on their own infrastructure. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> As the QA lead, I am requesting that until the Council convenes and decides |
24 |
> on how we should proceed, that we not add anything else to the tree |
25 |
> for the sole reason of supporting another package manager's features. |
26 |
> This includes profiles or any other packages. This will reduce |
27 |
> headaches for all of us, and hopefully cut down on needless arguments |
28 |
> that get us no where. |
29 |
|
30 |
Good call Mark. I second this request. |
31 |
|
32 |
|
33 |
-- |
34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |