Re: [gentoo-dev] Alternative Gentoo package managers discussion request (for the council)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [gentoo-dev] Alternative Gentoo package managers discussion request (for the council)

solar-4
Request for a decision acknowledged.
Fwding on mail to the rest of the council to ensure they see it.

On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 17:38 -0400, Mark Loeser wrote:

> As the latest long thread has shown, there seems to be a split (it is hard to
> tell exactly) on whether or not alternative package managers, that support
> Gentoo ebuilds to some degree, should be added to the tree and supported.
> Supported in this case means having their own profiles which may or may not
> work with Portage.  There are currently a few different Portage rewrites, or
> alternatives, whatever you want to call them, and all of them have their own
> unique features being added to them which make them incompatible with Portage.
> Some don't even emulate Portage's "broken" behaviour which could also cause
> QA problems for us if we add the package to the tree.  If a package is in the
> tree, it is implicitly stating that we are going to offer some level of
> support for that application, and it increases workload for everyone that
> may have an ebuild that works with one package manager and not another.
>
> Therefore, I am requesting at the next Council meeting that they discuss
> and decide on how we want to handle problems like this in general.  This
> is not going to be the last time that someone wants to add their rewrite/
> alternative of Portage to the tree.  It should be decided if it is really
> in the best interests of Gentoo, its users, and developers to be adding
> these new managers to our own tree, instead of having them host their
> altered work on their own infrastructure.
>
> As the QA lead, I am requesting that until the Council convenes and decides
> on how we should proceed, that we not add anything else to the tree
> for the sole reason of supporting another package manager's features.
> This includes profiles or any other packages.  This will reduce
> headaches for all of us, and hopefully cut down on needless arguments
> that get us no where.
>
> Thanks,
>
--
Ned Ludd <[hidden email]>
Gentoo Linux

--
[hidden email] mailing list

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Alternative Gentoo package managers discussion request (for the council)

Sven Vermeulen
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 08:38:03AM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> Request for a decision acknowledged.
> Fwding on mail to the rest of the council to ensure they see it.
[...]
> > Therefore, I am requesting at the next Council meeting that they discuss
> > and decide on how we want to handle problems like this in general.

I think this very sentence sums it up, I'll make my answer quite "short" as
well if I can.

I think a package manager is a major part of a distribution. Although I
do hope that alternative package managers aren't hold out of the Portage
Tree, I do feel that they should be treated as packages. They shouldn't
require any changes to the tree by themselves, including creating additional
profiles.

Anyone who wants to use an alternative package manager which requires
specific changes to the tree should use an overlay or different source for
the tree.

Wkr,
      Sven Vermeulen

PS Not posted to -dev, too crowded on this topic :)

--
  Gentoo Foundation Trustee          |  http://foundation.gentoo.org
  Gentoo Council Member  

  The Gentoo Project   <<< http://www.gentoo.org >>>

attachment0 (198 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Alternative Gentoo package managers discussion request (for the council)

solar-4
Well I might as well state my views here on the subject as well. It's
an outside project and I'd rather not make special exceptions for
things that can be worked around trivially. I've stated that portage
itself has a post_sync option which anything trying to mimic portage
should also include. The post sync action allows the pkg mgr to preform
any number of arbitrary commands after the rsync command has completed.
A post sync action would allow them to rsync overlay alternative
profiles on top of the existing profiles. Using this method does not
impose any additional burden on Gentoo and requires no changes to the
official tree and allows people offering alternatives to being control
of the profile they wish to maintain provided they can provide the
infrastructure for the overlay.

In short it takes all of 12 seconds to solve it in a very clean, simple
and transparent way.


On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 19:53 +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote:

> On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 08:38:03AM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > Request for a decision acknowledged.
> > Fwding on mail to the rest of the council to ensure they see it.
> [...]
> > > Therefore, I am requesting at the next Council meeting that they discuss
> > > and decide on how we want to handle problems like this in general.
>
> I think this very sentence sums it up, I'll make my answer quite "short" as
> well if I can.
>
> I think a package manager is a major part of a distribution. Although I
> do hope that alternative package managers aren't hold out of the Portage
> Tree, I do feel that they should be treated as packages. They shouldn't
> require any changes to the tree by themselves, including creating additional
> profiles.
>
> Anyone who wants to use an alternative package manager which requires
> specific changes to the tree should use an overlay or different source for
> the tree.
>
> Wkr,
>       Sven Vermeulen
>
> PS Not posted to -dev, too crowded on this topic :)
>
--
Ned Ludd <[hidden email]>
Gentoo Linux

--
[hidden email] mailing list

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Alternative Gentoo package managers discussion request (for the council)

Thierry Carrez
Ned Ludd wrote:

> provided they can provide the
> infrastructure for the overlay.

I think that's the root of the problem. They probably prefer to benefit
from Gentoo's rsync infrastructure rather than plug their own.

> In short it takes all of 12 seconds to solve it in a very clean, simple
> and transparent way.

It may take them more than 12 months to get proper redundant infra :)

-K
--
[hidden email] mailing list