Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Christel Dahlskjaer <christel@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Alternative Gentoo package managers discussion request (for the council)
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 22:31:40
Message-Id: 1147908238.4723.7.camel@gaspode
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Alternative Gentoo package managers discussion request (for the council) by Mark Loeser
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

Replies