| 1 |
On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:48:32 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| This is basically to protect the official package manager. This is |
| 4 |
| not because I like portage that much, but to provide some kind of |
| 5 |
| unified direction. I am afraid that allowing various competing |
| 6 |
| package managers would cause a wildfire of incompatible elements in |
| 7 |
| the tree. Therefore there must be one official package manager that |
| 8 |
| the tree works with. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
You're saying "we must never move forward" here. There is no |
| 11 |
requirement that users use packages that are EAPI masked, any more than |
| 12 |
there is a requirement that users use packages that are package masked. |
| 13 |
We have had situations in the past where some ebuilds have relied upon a |
| 14 |
non-stable or hard-masked Portage version. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
| > The same situation will occur when newer Portage versions supporting |
| 17 |
| > newer EAPIs are released into p.mask or ~arch. Some packages will |
| 18 |
| > end up relying upon something that isn't the stable package manager. |
| 19 |
| |
| 20 |
| Portage is however the official package manager. This means that |
| 21 |
| these packages do not hamper the position of the official package |
| 22 |
| manager. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
The "official package manager" isn't something that's in package.mask. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 28 |
Mail : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives