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 1Fg533-0001Ly-K3 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 16 May 2006 19:17:38 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k4GJHPSu002283; Tue, 16 May 2006 19:17:25 GMT Received: from ppsw-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-1.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.131]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4GJHOA2013492 for ; Tue, 16 May 2006 19:17:24 GMT X-Cam-SpamDetails: Not scanned X-Cam-AntiVirus: No virus found X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from cpc5-cmbg1-0-0-cust453.cmbg.cable.ntl.com ([86.6.1.198]:1065 helo=[192.168.10.10]) by ppsw-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.151]:465) with esmtpsa (PLAIN:spb42) (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1Fg52n-0003C6-5b (Exim 4.54) for gentoo-qa@lists.gentoo.org (return-path ); Tue, 16 May 2006 20:17:21 +0100 Message-ID: <448F0F30.3000302@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:17:04 +0100 From: Stephen Bennett User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Windows/20041103) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en 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> In-Reply-To: <20060516174812.GE7092@aerie.halcy0n.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "S.P. Bennett" X-Archives-Salt: 62616d0c-6238-4a48-81b2-31fa959110d9 X-Archives-Hash: cbae04b97f2be95f83b5b2e97b42ace8 Mark Loeser wrote: > 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), If anything, I see it the other way. By far our largest and most valuable piece of code is the tree, and Portage exists to provide an environment in which it can be of use. > 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. If someone were wanting to change existing parts of the tree for no other reason than compatibility with another package manager, I'd agree with you. I don't, however, see a problem in adding a self-contained piece of code that has no effect on the rest of the tree. -- gentoo-qa@gentoo.org mailing list