Paul de Vrieze wrote: > 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 >
So what you really meant to say was, "I don't have a good answer, so I'll make something up which makes no sense." -Steve -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
