On 14 August 2013 21:41, hasufell <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/14/2013 10:17 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, hasufell wrote: >> >>>>>>> And their lack of time (to be polite) should not block general >>>>>>> progress in gentoo. >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps these basic notions of how Gentoo development works >>>>> >>>>> You certainly are not an authority when it comes to that >>>>> question... >>>> >>>> Well no >> >>> exactly >> >> Stop it. Now. >> >> gentoo-dev is a list for technical topics, so please take your >> personal quarrels elsewhere. >> >> Ulrich >> >> > > Why don't you respond to my technical points then? PMS is blocking > progress, again, because it does not reflect reality. > > I don't even see a reason why we should keep up that effort. >
Because if you want to allow multiple package managers as an option, then you need to have a clearly defined spec for them. The fact that portage implemented something that is not part of PMS, is not a PMS problem. So unless it becomes part of PMS, it can't be used in places where you expect PMS compliance. If you want PMS to go away, and call portage the one-and-true PM for Gentoo, then it's probably something for the Council to decide. -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
