On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Alec Warner <anta...@gentoo.org> wrote: > We did post to -dev, hence this thread.
My post was intended to be general in applicability, and not critical of the particular instance of this issue being discussed. I would generally suggest that implementing this as a package and not as a function built-into portage would tend to make more sense to me (do we really want portage to do EVERYTHING?). However, I don't think that anybody needs anybody's blessing in particular to take one course or the other there. And, in the Gentoo tradition of everybody-does-whatever-they-want-to, there is nothing wrong with one set of devs doing it one way and another set doing it another way so that we end up with two data repositories with somewhat redundant data so that we can start another discussion on -dev about what the differences in the datasets mean. That is, until eventually devs get bored and after enough bugs pile up one or both of the collection mechanisms gets treecleaned. Then in five years somebody can build a new one. :) If I had strong concerns with anything that seemed likely to get adopted I'd voice them. Rich
