| 1 |
Mark Loeser wrote: |
| 2 |
> As I see it, the tree is for Portage, and it is nice if it works with |
| 3 |
> other package managers (such as pkgcore or paludis), |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
If anything, I see it the other way. By far our largest and most |
| 6 |
valuable piece of code is the tree, and Portage exists to provide an |
| 7 |
environment in which it can be of use. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> but I do not |
| 10 |
> believe we should be making changes, of any kind, just to improve how |
| 11 |
> their programs work. I have no problems with rewrites of Portage, but |
| 12 |
> making changes to the live tree for something other than Portage does |
| 13 |
> not seem to make sense to me. If we decide to recognize rewrites as |
| 14 |
> official alternatives, then making changes makes sense, but until that |
| 15 |
> point, I don't believe it does. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
If someone were wanting to change existing parts of the tree for no |
| 18 |
other reason than compatibility with another package manager, I'd agree |
| 19 |
with you. I don't, however, see a problem in adding a self-contained |
| 20 |
piece of code that has no effect on the rest of the tree. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
gentoo-qa@g.o mailing list |
Archives