-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Duncan wrote:
> However, now that PMS is finally about to provide what should be a
> definitive description of current generation package behavior, with the
> announced intention to update this with new versions into the future as
> required, the dependence on portage as the reference will soon be going
> away. The announced intention for this, among other things, is to allow
> alternate package managers, such that it can still be clear when it's the
> package broken and when it's the package manager.
From what I've read of the PMS, it currently only describes the input
format it would accept (namely the format for ebuild files and their
contents). This question can be delayed until the PMS defines the
operation of the package manager, including but not limited to the
recording of installed package data. If the package managers do not
agree on which packages are installed or how to uninstall them, then
they are not yet interchangeable.
I apologize if this point has already been raised elsewhere in the
thread. I try not to get involved in threads like this, but
accidentally read a reply and thought this might be a valuable response.
Mike 5:)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGD6/0u7rWomwgFXoRAiT9AKCV/+YGLba3owSWEt/cbOPbyC3YrgCfbboE
+oqnTwPBGzD7ORY15VwOxoo=
=I3ta
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
