On 18/05/06, Christel Dahlskjaer <christel@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 00:23 +0100, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 17:38 -0400, Mark Loeser wrote:
> > > As the latest long thread has shown, there seems to be a split (it is
> hard to
> > > tell exactly) on whether or not alternative package managers, that
> support
> > > Gentoo ebuilds to some degree, should be added to the tree and
> supported.
> > > Supported in this case means having their own profiles which may or
> may not
> > > work with Portage.  There are currently a few different Portage
> rewrites, or
> > > alternatives, whatever you want to call them, and all of them have
> their own
> > > unique features being added to them which make them incompatible with
> Portage.
> > > Some don't even emulate Portage's "broken" behaviour which could also
> cause
> > > QA problems for us if we add the package to the tree.  If a package is
> in the
> > > tree, it is implicitly stating that we are going to offer some level
> of
> > > support for that application, and it increases workload for everyone
> that
> > > may have an ebuild that works with one package manager and not
> another.
> > >
> > > Therefore, I am requesting at the next Council meeting that they
> discuss
> > > and decide on how we want to handle problems like this in
> general.  This
> > > is not going to be the last time that someone wants to add their
> rewrite/
> > > alternative of Portage to the tree.  It should be decided if it is
> really
> > > in the best interests of Gentoo, its users, and developers to be
> adding
> > > these new managers to our own tree, instead of having them host their
> > > altered work on their own infrastructure.
> > >
> > > As the QA lead, I am requesting that until the Council convenes and
> decides
> > > on how we should proceed, that we not add anything else to the tree
> > > for the sole reason of supporting another package manager's features.
> > > This includes profiles or any other packages.  This will reduce
> > > headaches for all of us, and hopefully cut down on needless arguments
> > > that get us no where.
> >
> > Good call Mark. I second this request.
>
> Maybe I should have ellaborated on that, I do believe that the current
> thread has been somewhat educational for a 'newbie' like myself, but I
> also think that for the future it would be beneficial for people to know
> how to go about similar. :)
>
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> Glad to see my suggestion of sorting this problem before going full stream
ahead:

> Surely then it would be better to work on a comprimise for the sake of
Gentoo rather than paludis. Horse before the cart.