On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:48:32 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | This is basically to protect the official package manager. This is | not because I like portage that much, but to provide some kind of | unified direction. I am afraid that allowing various competing | package managers would cause a wildfire of incompatible elements in | the tree. Therefore there must be one official package manager that | the tree works with.
You're saying "we must never move forward" here. There is no requirement that users use packages that are EAPI masked, any more than there is a requirement that users use packages that are package masked. We have had situations in the past where some ebuilds have relied upon a non-stable or hard-masked Portage version. | > The same situation will occur when newer Portage versions supporting | > newer EAPIs are released into p.mask or ~arch. Some packages will | > end up relying upon something that isn't the stable package manager. | | Portage is however the official package manager. This means that | these packages do not hamper the position of the official package | manager. The "official package manager" isn't something that's in package.mask. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
