Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 16 May 2006 15:56:38 -0700:
> This whole thing seems a bit dumb; it's not that far off from someone > coming along with a non-compliant c compiler, and arguing that they're > still compliant, they just dropped the stupid stuff they didn't like. > > They're still incompatible... Interesting you bring that up. There are C standards independent of any individual implementation. A compiler that doesn't comply with those standards is noncompliant, by definition. OTOH, a compiler that doesn't comply with J Random implementation may or may not be standards compliant, because J Random implementation doesn't define the standard. The point argued here is that there isn't such an implementation independent standard for a Gentoo package manager. Arguing that the standard is portage is hardly different than arguing that the standard for certain network environments is... Well, let's just say there's a certain anti-trust case going on about it at the moment. How can one possibly write to such a "standard"? Now, I'm not saying the current profile proposal is something I support, I'll deal with that in a different reply, but let's be clear, there are standards, and there is portage, and portage does not a standard define. If one is going to argue that a standard must be supported, that standard should exist as more than the code of a single implementation. A standard that doesn't exist as such cannot be a reasonable requirement for support. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
