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 1Fg7lp-0002Gw-Uq for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 16 May 2006 22:12:02 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k4GMBlr5013868; Tue, 16 May 2006 22:11:47 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4GMBkeL013758 for ; Tue, 16 May 2006 22:11:46 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE711642D9 for ; Tue, 16 May 2006 22:11:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 17796-06 for ; Tue, 16 May 2006 22:11:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.24.6] (ip68-5-234-231.oc.oc.cox.net [68.5.234.231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4F17642F4 for ; Tue, 16 May 2006 22:11:38 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <446A4E17.8010203@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 15:11:35 -0700 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060506) 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 To: gentoo-qa@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-qa] Support of other package managers References: <20060516174812.GE7092@aerie.halcy0n.com> <448F0F30.3000302@gentoo.org> <20060516195654.GA260@woodpecker.gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20060516195654.GA260@woodpecker.gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.207 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.446, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL=1.946] X-Spam-Score: -0.207 X-Spam-Level: X-Archives-Salt: 110cc249-29ee-4365-8f28-5391ee539697 X-Archives-Hash: 27cbc0641a614534449984809a91faed -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Seemant Kulleen wrote: > This issue is certainly a dicey one. I don't think there is an easy to > define answer. It has always been assumed that a portage rewrite > (whether it were a third party reimplementation in a !python language, > or pkgcore/paludis or portage-ng) would just fit right into the tree, > without making changes of any kind at all. So I think the question that > we need to answer is *what* changes are necessary to the profiles and > *why* -- or I suppose, why would paludis/pkgcore need to have its own > profile? > > I think it would be a lot easier to see what it is that needs this sort > of change before we can make an informed call about it. Yeah, I think what's really needed is a specification of what is allowed in gentoo's official portage tree. Let's take "per-package use.mask" (bug 96368) as an example. It could be implemented as package.use.mask or as package.mask + use deps. Which will it be? Will paludis, pkgcore, and portage all handle this functionality the same way or not? If we're going to allow new features such as this into the official portage tree, we need to make sure that they conform to a specification that everyone has agreed upon. Zac -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEak4V/ejvha5XGaMRAsiAAJ94mIvX/fbb98ng47nQ2N5TiESbfwCfRIM1 M4k5bburtTHPKzsTeWALXZU= =q09w -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-qa@gentoo.org mailing list