On Monday 22 May 2006 17:29, Grant Goodyear wrote: > Jon Portnoy wrote: [Mon May 22 2006, 09:38:23AM CDT] > > > On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 09:21:34AM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: > > > Please don't change your wording on that. The feel really strongly > > > about the primary pkg manager of Gentoo needing remain under the > > > full control of Gentoo Linux. > > > > Agreed, I'm of the opinion it would be inappropriate to let an > > outside entity steer our primary package manager. > > I'm not sure I understand why. After all, mandriva, suse, ubuntu, and > many others have survived quite well. More to the point, though, it's > not clear to me what awful things happen if Gentoo does not own the > package manager code, as long as that code is under a reasonable > license. Suppose that such a package manager did became a Gentoo > default, and at some point the program diverged from what Gentoo really > wanted; wouldn't Gentoo then just fork the package manager? Am I > missing something obvious?
There are serious costs involved with forking something. For gentoo this would include image problems by being seen as "evil" forkers. Also mandriva, suse, ubuntu etc. distinguish themselves from the pack in which packages are offered in which configuration. Gentoo differs from that in that users can determine the configuration. The package manager directly influences the freedom available for the users. Making binary and source distros not easilly comparable. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgpAUtzRyitXL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
