| 1 |
Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
> Problem with the preference you have above is you're considering |
| 3 |
> portage as the primary pkg manager/authority for that system, which it |
| 4 |
> isn't on osx. |
| 5 |
If a tool is broken you change it, the apple toolchain and probably |
| 6 |
userspace could enjoy some improvements. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> It's the secondary manager. So it shouldn't be stomping on the toes |
| 9 |
> of what exists already unless absolutely required (shifting these |
| 10 |
> utilities into a seperate directory, and abusing the path or alising |
| 11 |
> as they do already is saner IMHO). |
| 12 |
That's ok, my idea of replacement could be done just switching the paths |
| 13 |
and segregating the bogus components. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Consider the case of backing out portage/gentoo when it's the |
| 16 |
> secondary pkg manager; worst case, a few empty dirs and configs get |
| 17 |
> left. Should still be the same base system it was prior to the gentoo |
| 18 |
> experiment though... |
| 19 |
I think everybody agrees about that. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> ~brian |
| 22 |
> -- |
| 23 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives