1 |
On 18/05/06, Christel Dahlskjaer <christel@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 00:23 +0100, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: |
4 |
> > On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 17:38 -0400, Mark Loeser wrote: |
5 |
> > > As the latest long thread has shown, there seems to be a split (it is |
6 |
> hard to |
7 |
> > > tell exactly) on whether or not alternative package managers, that |
8 |
> support |
9 |
> > > Gentoo ebuilds to some degree, should be added to the tree and |
10 |
> supported. |
11 |
> > > Supported in this case means having their own profiles which may or |
12 |
> may not |
13 |
> > > work with Portage. There are currently a few different Portage |
14 |
> rewrites, or |
15 |
> > > alternatives, whatever you want to call them, and all of them have |
16 |
> their own |
17 |
> > > unique features being added to them which make them incompatible with |
18 |
> Portage. |
19 |
> > > Some don't even emulate Portage's "broken" behaviour which could also |
20 |
> cause |
21 |
> > > QA problems for us if we add the package to the tree. If a package is |
22 |
> in the |
23 |
> > > tree, it is implicitly stating that we are going to offer some level |
24 |
> of |
25 |
> > > support for that application, and it increases workload for everyone |
26 |
> that |
27 |
> > > may have an ebuild that works with one package manager and not |
28 |
> another. |
29 |
> > > |
30 |
> > > Therefore, I am requesting at the next Council meeting that they |
31 |
> discuss |
32 |
> > > and decide on how we want to handle problems like this in |
33 |
> general. This |
34 |
> > > is not going to be the last time that someone wants to add their |
35 |
> rewrite/ |
36 |
> > > alternative of Portage to the tree. It should be decided if it is |
37 |
> really |
38 |
> > > in the best interests of Gentoo, its users, and developers to be |
39 |
> adding |
40 |
> > > these new managers to our own tree, instead of having them host their |
41 |
> > > altered work on their own infrastructure. |
42 |
> > > |
43 |
> > > As the QA lead, I am requesting that until the Council convenes and |
44 |
> decides |
45 |
> > > on how we should proceed, that we not add anything else to the tree |
46 |
> > > for the sole reason of supporting another package manager's features. |
47 |
> > > This includes profiles or any other packages. This will reduce |
48 |
> > > headaches for all of us, and hopefully cut down on needless arguments |
49 |
> > > that get us no where. |
50 |
> > |
51 |
> > Good call Mark. I second this request. |
52 |
> |
53 |
> Maybe I should have ellaborated on that, I do believe that the current |
54 |
> thread has been somewhat educational for a 'newbie' like myself, but I |
55 |
> also think that for the future it would be beneficial for people to know |
56 |
> how to go about similar. :) |
57 |
> |
58 |
> |
59 |
> -- |
60 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
61 |
> |
62 |
> Glad to see my suggestion of sorting this problem before going full stream |
63 |
ahead: |
64 |
|
65 |
> Surely then it would be better to work on a comprimise for the sake of |
66 |
Gentoo rather than paludis. Horse before the cart. |