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 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HWHlv-0007C2-W7 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:56:00 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l2RJsHtJ027613; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:54:17 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l2RJmqsE018144 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:49:28 GMT Received: from home.wh0rd.org (pool-151-203-195-204.bos.east.verizon.net [151.203.195.204]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B453AB4C2A for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:19:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 24551 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2007 14:14:13 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO vapier) (192.168.0.2) by 192.168.0.1 with SMTP; 27 Mar 2007 14:14:13 -0500 From: Mike Frysinger Organization: wh0rd.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [soc] Python bindings for Paludis Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:19:29 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 References: <200703240028.15461.peper@gentoo.org> <200703251403.38629.vapier@gentoo.org> <4606BF5C.9060304@klever.net> In-Reply-To: <4606BF5C.9060304@klever.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1474941.conZeUmIxl"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200703271519.29674.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 09e45ef3-f1fb-48bd-8fe8-7ae200266900 X-Archives-Hash: 72cf79fe1bd4d1bee034df109a7af4e5 --nextPart1474941.conZeUmIxl Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Sunday 25 March 2007, Michael Krelin wrote: > > the werent the same question nor were they the same answer > > They weren't the same, but the second answer was definitely wrong: > > > So is alternative package manager support something that's considered > > > important and a priority by the Council? > > > > yes > > > > > Did you not say that finding alternatives to Portage is one of Gentoo= 's > > > > > > > priorities? > > > > no i did not, nor does that apply here > > because it explicitly states that you *did not* say it (and the wording > doesn't differ enough to justify it), not only that it doesn't apply. i think the use of negatives has confused you ... the answers i posted to=20 ciaranm's questions in both cases are correct one of Gentoo's priorities is to enable alternative package managers to=20 coexist sanely ... it is not one of Gentoo's priorities at this time to=20 replace Portage with a different package manager =2Dmike --nextPart1474941.conZeUmIxl Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUARgluQUFjO5/oN/WBAQKS2g/8DZ+gBvRrKFQioXLcwZIJgX9GM/jwog4G qK1FkwUDUl9YFM8U/6EMGMyOLpJsJ+7RhGD8RCZjePr8FSdrJmiG5uZoeeB2FY1q UmNLqHtW+YyYOO23kHJECT1Fp/FsFgwgpr/kV+T+U62yRWGQ7JNaV5w+TZGkD5xK iwKHooWsi3QHfCX4g5MfQ6wfQxdT330xsM96LLz2ERR5FNCF8XtxoW0PiHhZzEZM X74IHLRNUmS1CrHC15BMldILX6InXOcMWodTagnMPBJjbrb+yf2YUIfIHGcmDOfs vDEuL4hTxfRn8ygRTxXQyTigxNlOVHYeeDpgbk8IGAdgiMVuM184pr4gQ64rabak K0Al9N31UB50l5k4jQ72vsWqo/BizvneEjMeDUplK7BlxYqLs52RT3QTJNNcVSa8 6Gdh+TiELbKVjldWvUcfrKFtUSAJP82O2WeviJ2FV7NasgQsUxLEyl94+MhuRVwu zjKF6Bj4Is8GZp+vBSbJkoAFZVDlVs39/4xnupB2fOX536InXMTfnGsMHI2cpA2N 0CfCprNNZIgFiA5TaW9sgtKDdVkroPxrpD7ZD1/6d/BMXpb8U8TU7iITpuStgCjM eE784SJ0PAyy5Vi2AKASY0XpdIvAvrlXH8eQypySHjV4TeAFuf0aVhvGcqgrzjaJ e4tZXXZIiaw= =oUSb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1474941.conZeUmIxl-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list