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 4.50) id 1EPcTm-0001nB-3f for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2005 09:00:54 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id j9C8oucb007759; Wed, 12 Oct 2005 08:50:56 GMT Received: from loopy.telegraphics.com.au (loopy.telegraphics.com.au [202.45.126.152]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id j9C8otwA020216 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2005 08:50:56 GMT Received: by loopy.telegraphics.com.au (Postfix, from userid 1001) id BC238E8D08; Wed, 12 Oct 2005 19:00:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by loopy.telegraphics.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id B583AE8C68 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2005 19:00:32 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 19:00:32 +1000 (EST) From: Finn Thain To: gentoo-osx@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-osx] xorg-x11 In-Reply-To: <20051012081914.GA15061@gentoo.org> Message-ID: References: <434AE8DE.7030702@users.sourceforge.net> <719D9EBD-5B99-4F5E-B22F-D5F7A2C1CD33@gentoo.org> <434CA078.8010405@gentoo.org> <056F95DC-ECFF-41AF-A771-097047BEBD88@gentoo.org> <20051012073730.GA14244@gentoo.org> <20051012081914.GA15061@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-osx@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-osx@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Archives-Salt: d3b5d755-5bca-432e-9ebe-9f1fda2e3360 X-Archives-Hash: c9a4ad85211aba95fca83cac2eabe6a7 On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Grobian wrote: > > IMHO trying to define progressive or conservative would be futile > > until we get to play with the portage rewrite (domains and prefixes). > > Not completely agree on this. It's nice for me to know what the others > consider 'progressive' to mean, as I now see it as a "shut-up with your > collision-protect crap and just do it" profile, which I am for sure not > interested in, nor see the use of at the moment. I like to see the big > picture of things where possible. If you take the long view, and assume that we will get prefixes sooner than later, then devs should be aiming for _maximum_ collisions, since from a darwin point of view, that means better interoperability with Apple's open source work. If you take a compromise, you might end up with fewer collisions in the short term, but you make it harder for Gentoo/Darwin and "progressive" to interoperate with Gentoo/macos and Apple. That is why I argued against moving the perl executable, for example. And it is also why I argued for stabling packages with collisions. I was simply taking the long view, and trying to avoid rework for the gentoo/darwin project. As for the "conservative" profile, it doesn't have many users, and will not have until we get prefixes, so why optimise for "collision-protect"? -f -- gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list