Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] PMS
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 16:31:08
Message-Id: 1197736248l.20970l.1l@spike
In Reply to: [gentoo-project] PMS by Steve Long
On 2007.12.15 06:46, Steve Long wrote:
> Just a quick post re something that was raised in the council > meeting. >
Steve, The offical package manager is portage. If another package manager does something different to portage - even if it fixes a bug in portage, by definition, its not compliant. The exisiting PMS have been arrived at by documenting what portage does, which is itself a moving target. No PMS is likely to be endorsed until Portage stays still long enough to document it, check it and ratifiy it, unless some arbitary portage version is chosen to document. Any such PMS won't be very useful, as portage will have moved on meanwhile. A PMS will only be useful when its adopted and maintained by the portage devs, when portage will become a reference inplementaion of the spec. I don't see that happening, since they don't need such a document. It reminds me of AMD, Cyrix and others trying to produce a x86 CPU clone. Most got close but not close enough as they failed to reproduce the bugs in the silicon that were in some cases needed for normal operation. AMD persisted and got a reasonable market share. Intel didn't make it easy, releasing new CPUs from time to time. At least developers wanting a PMS can read the portage source code to see what it does. Regards, Roy Bamford (NeddySeagoon) -- gentoo-project@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-project] PMS Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@×××××××××××××.uk>
[gentoo-project] Re: PMS Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>