| 1 |
Grant, |
| 2 |
Apologies; I can't find your note from yesterday, so I can't respond |
| 3 |
to the correct topic. |
| 4 |
One question just occurred to me; if it's been addressed before, |
| 5 |
apologies about that, too. Your requirement that any alternative |
| 6 |
package manager support any ebuild which portage supports seems |
| 7 |
essential, except for a boundary case. What about ebuilds which for |
| 8 |
whatever reason are invalid (serious specification violation, for |
| 9 |
example, to the extent that QA would reject them), but portage accepts |
| 10 |
them anyway. Must the alternative accept them as well? In a case like |
| 11 |
this, it seems to me that the ebuild works because of a bug in portage, |
| 12 |
and there should be no complaint if as a side effect of fixing this bug |
| 13 |
the ebuild in question quit working. |
| 14 |
If memory serves me, things like this have indeed happened. I can't |
| 15 |
recall a specific, however. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Regards, |
| 18 |
Ferris |
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o> |
| 21 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc) |
Archives