On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 08:04:36PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 11:51:16 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 07:34:16PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:20:29 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | > wrote:
> | > | On Thursday 18 May 2006 20:02, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > | >It's kinda like this:
> | > | 
> | > | Stop making such odd and wrong comparisons. The package manager is
> | > | part of what defines a distribution, choosing a shell is the users
> | > | choice. If you want to make the package manager matter of choice,
> | > | start your own distribution.
> | > 
> | > How many package managers does Debian have? What about Fedora?
> | 
> | They all support the exact same format.
> | 
> | You're changing the format, dropping what you dislike- they also 
> | support the same installed pkgs backend last I looked, again, not the 
> | case for paludis.
> 
> No, they have a common subset of shared operations, just as Paludis and
> Portage do.

They have a common subset of shared *high level* operations, 
resolution differing dependant on the high level component used.

Note I said 'high level', not low level, ie the format (which is what 
my point was).

This is why despite most distro level bastardizations of the rpm spec,
things still work- they're relying on a common tool/lib to handle low 
level details, rather then reimplementing them (and changing them) as 
paludis does.

Simply put, others have a seperation between high level functionality 
(resolution, fetching, etc), and the low level format- high level 
differs elsewhere (leading to some fun issues like apt-rpm's inability 
to install N versions of a pkg), but the format bits are still common 
to that distro (rather then reimplemented by each).

So no... not a valid counterarg- paludis relationship to portage 
(namely, we're going to do what we think is best format level despite 
what portage does) directly contradicts your arguement.

~harring

Attachment: pgpZbQ2PHpx04.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to