On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 16:26 +0000, Thomas Cort wrote: > On Wed, 17 May 2006 15:48:04 -0400 > Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I also recommend that the package is masked in all > > Gentoo profiles where a release is built against, since again, it is > > 100% incompatible and upstream has now said that they have no intentions > > on making it compatible. > > rpm, stow, and dpkg are 100% incompatible with portage and I'm fairly certain > that upstream has no intentions of making them compatible, yet they are in > the tree and stable on many arches. Are you also suggesting that we mask them > too?
What do package managers that don't claim, in any way, to be portage-compatible have to do with *this* package manager that *does*? One of the goals of this package is to be a portage replacement/alternative. Why do people *insist* on trying to add so many levels of indirection into their "discussions"? Do you really think that attempting to confuse a situation makes it any easier to reach a solution? Are you arguing for the sake of arguing? Perhaps you just like to hear yourself talk? -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
