From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Fg3hA-0008Fw-3k for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 16 May 2006 17:50:56 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k4GHmGVE019445; Tue, 16 May 2006 17:48:16 GMT Received: from aerie.halcy0n.com ([65.98.89.194]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4GHmEDO003355 for ; Tue, 16 May 2006 17:48:14 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aerie.halcy0n.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33C457D812 for ; Tue, 16 May 2006 13:48:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from aerie.halcy0n.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (halcy0n.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 02778-09-3; Tue, 16 May 2006 13:48:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by aerie.halcy0n.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4D7917D811; Tue, 16 May 2006 13:48:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 13:48:12 -0400 From: Mark Loeser To: gentoo-qa@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-qa] Support of other package managers Message-ID: <20060516174812.GE7092@aerie.halcy0n.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-qa@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-qa@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="SNIs70sCzqvszXB4" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at halcy0n.com X-Archives-Salt: 8b9a7e4f-e3f3-4324-9000-55af1da35882 X-Archives-Hash: 4058c647666ee37e127cfe9a31caf8b6 --SNIs70sCzqvszXB4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This email is to gauge the opinion of everyone that is currently on the QA team as to the matter of supporting other package managers with our tree. As I see it, the tree is for Portage, and it is nice if it works with other package managers (such as pkgcore or paludis), but I do not believe we should be making changes, of any kind, just to improve how their programs work. I have no problems with rewrites of Portage, but making changes to the live tree for something other than Portage does not seem to make sense to me. If we decide to recognize rewrites as official alternatives, then making changes makes sense, but until that point, I don't believe it does. I would appreciate feedback on this so that we can come to some sort of agreement on how situations such as this should be handled. Thanks, --=20 Mark Loeser - Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting qa toolchain x86) email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org mark AT halcy0n DOT com web - http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/ http://www.halcy0n.com --SNIs70sCzqvszXB4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEahBcCRZPokWLroQRAlu6AJwJMMaoPDVPpOcWAJN2HxLd4PmmRgCgzon9 laqn/+6nmvnNoXSIdXsdkYw= =Lm99 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --SNIs70sCzqvszXB4-- -- gentoo-qa@gentoo.org mailing list