| 1 |
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:49:38 +0200 |
| 2 |
Thomas Rösner <Thomas.Roesner@××××××××××××××.de> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > A package manager that supports a better binary package format |
| 4 |
> > (split out local metadata would be a good start) combined with a |
| 5 |
> > third party binary provider could deliver that with no tree changes. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> But then you'd need a tree of binary packages, which you'd only get |
| 8 |
> with many users of your package manager, which would depend on |
| 9 |
> official Gentoo adoption |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
The sort of people who are likely to go ahead and make a decent binary |
| 12 |
tree are the sort who don't particularly care whether a package manager |
| 13 |
is officially supported, so long as it does the job well. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> I think you know that and that's why you did work on PMS |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
PMS doesn't say anything about binary packages, for one... |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> Hm, perhaps you should let somebody else do the PR for paludis? :-) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
This has nothing to do with PR. It's to do with whether or not Gentoo |
| 22 |
has a viable future. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives