| 1 |
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:29:22AM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: |
| 2 |
> > |
| 3 |
> > Agreed, I'm of the opinion it would be inappropriate to let an outside |
| 4 |
> > entity steer our primary package manager. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I'm not sure I understand why. After all, mandriva, suse, ubuntu, and |
| 7 |
> many others have survived quite well. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
And really never do anything innovative with their package managers; |
| 10 |
in fact apt and rpm haven't done anything new and interesting since the |
| 11 |
90s. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> 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 |
|
| 22 |
Well, let's take the real life example of paludis vs. portage: Paludis |
| 23 |
is controlled by a former developer known for being hard to work with, |
| 24 |
Portage (being a Gentoo project) by necessitity has to be controlled by |
| 25 |
someone other developers can work with (else the council can intervene |
| 26 |
and fix the problem with new management). |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
If the primary package manager is controlled by Gentoo, we exercise |
| 29 |
somewhat more control over the direction it takes in the first place |
| 30 |
and can avoid ever needing to fork or deal with any potentially poor |
| 31 |
upstream relations. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Jon Portnoy |
| 35 |
avenj/irc.freenode.net |
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives