1 |
On Monday 22 May 2006 17:29, Grant Goodyear wrote: |
2 |
> Jon Portnoy wrote: [Mon May 22 2006, 09:38:23AM CDT] |
3 |
> |
4 |
> > On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 09:21:34AM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: |
5 |
> > > Please don't change your wording on that. The feel really strongly |
6 |
> > > about the primary pkg manager of Gentoo needing remain under the |
7 |
> > > full control of Gentoo Linux. |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > Agreed, I'm of the opinion it would be inappropriate to let an |
10 |
> > outside entity steer our primary package manager. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> I'm not sure I understand why. After all, mandriva, suse, ubuntu, and |
13 |
> many others have survived quite well. More to the point, though, it's |
14 |
> not clear to me what awful things happen if Gentoo does not own the |
15 |
> package manager code, as long as that code is under a reasonable |
16 |
> license. Suppose that such a package manager did became a Gentoo |
17 |
> default, and at some point the program diverged from what Gentoo really |
18 |
> wanted; wouldn't Gentoo then just fork the package manager? Am I |
19 |
> missing something obvious? |
20 |
|
21 |
There are serious costs involved with forking something. For gentoo this |
22 |
would include image problems by being seen as "evil" forkers. Also |
23 |
mandriva, suse, ubuntu etc. distinguish themselves from the pack in which |
24 |
packages are offered in which configuration. Gentoo differs from that in |
25 |
that users can determine the configuration. The package manager directly |
26 |
influences the freedom available for the users. Making binary and source |
27 |
distros not easilly comparable. |
28 |
|
29 |
Paul |
30 |
|
31 |
-- |
32 |
Paul de Vrieze |
33 |
Gentoo Developer |
34 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
35 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |