| 1 |
On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 10:29 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: |
| 2 |
> Jon Portnoy wrote: [Mon May 22 2006, 09:38:23AM CDT] |
| 3 |
> > On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 09:21:34AM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Please don't change your wording on that. The feel really strongly |
| 5 |
> > > about the primary pkg manager of Gentoo needing remain under the full |
| 6 |
> > > control of Gentoo Linux. |
| 7 |
> > > |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Agreed, I'm of the opinion it would be inappropriate to let an outside |
| 10 |
> > 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. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
rpm and apt have withstood the test of time and are mature pkg |
| 16 |
managers, not immature experimental code still in major development. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> More to the point, though, it's |
| 19 |
> not clear to me what awful things happen if Gentoo does not own the |
| 20 |
> package manager code, |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
It should be pretty clear that one of the main problems is letting |
| 23 |
others decide which features we will and wont have and defining our |
| 24 |
standards based on their needs and not our own. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Please don't forget either that what we know as Gentoo is |
| 27 |
based/built upon the tool known as portage. Everything we do |
| 28 |
(all teams included) revolves around it. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |
| 32 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives