1 |
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> We did post to -dev, hence this thread. |
3 |
|
4 |
My post was intended to be general in applicability, and not critical |
5 |
of the particular instance of this issue being discussed. |
6 |
|
7 |
I would generally suggest that implementing this as a package and not |
8 |
as a function built-into portage would tend to make more sense to me |
9 |
(do we really want portage to do EVERYTHING?). However, I don't think |
10 |
that anybody needs anybody's blessing in particular to take one course |
11 |
or the other there. And, in the Gentoo tradition of |
12 |
everybody-does-whatever-they-want-to, there is nothing wrong with one |
13 |
set of devs doing it one way and another set doing it another way so |
14 |
that we end up with two data repositories with somewhat redundant data |
15 |
so that we can start another discussion on -dev about what the |
16 |
differences in the datasets mean. That is, until eventually devs get |
17 |
bored and after enough bugs pile up one or both of the collection |
18 |
mechanisms gets treecleaned. Then in five years somebody can build a |
19 |
new one. :) |
20 |
|
21 |
If I had strong concerns with anything that seemed likely to get |
22 |
adopted I'd voice them. |
23 |
|
24 |
Rich |