| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ciaranm
Retired Dev
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Posts: 1719
Location: In Hiding
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:55 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| pilla wrote: | | ciaranm wrote: |
Your local gentoo-dev archives. |
Right, nothing has been written. |
No, you just aren't looking hard enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ferringb
Developer
Joined: 03 Apr 2003
Posts: 355
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ciaranm wrote: | | pilla wrote: | | ciaranm wrote: |
Your local gentoo-dev archives. |
Right, nothing has been written. |
No, you just aren't looking hard enough. |
There's not much to find. A RFC on configuration protection 2 months back isn't much; config protect while nice, isn't exactly a core aspect of ebuild support; even with, there still is variation in the support (deviating from what y'all proposed iirc also).
_________________
I don't want to be buried in a pet cemetery. ~Ramones |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ciaranm
Retired Dev
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Posts: 1719
Location: In Hiding
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ferringb wrote: | | ciaranm wrote: | | pilla wrote: | | ciaranm wrote: |
Your local gentoo-dev archives. |
Right, nothing has been written. |
No, you just aren't looking hard enough. |
There's not much to find. A RFC on configuration protection 2 months back isn't much; config protect while nice, isn't exactly a core aspect of ebuild support; even with, there still is variation in the support (deviating from what y'all proposed iirc also). |
Big difference between that and nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pilla
Administrator
Joined: 07 Aug 2002
Posts: 7184
Location: Pelotas, BR
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ciaranm wrote: |
No, you just aren't looking hard enough. |
I've searched for "Package Manager Specification" in my gentoo-dev folder and found nothing. Maybe you're being inaccurate about its name?
If I look hard enough, will I find a document that does not exist?
_________________
"I'm just very selective about the reality I choose to accept." -- Calvin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ferringb
Developer
Joined: 03 Apr 2003
Posts: 355
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ciaranm wrote: | | ferringb wrote: | | ciaranm wrote: | | pilla wrote: | | ciaranm wrote: |
Your local gentoo-dev archives. |
Right, nothing has been written. |
No, you just aren't looking hard enough. |
There's not much to find. A RFC on configuration protection 2 months back isn't much; config protect while nice, isn't exactly a core aspect of ebuild support; even with, there still is variation in the support (deviating from what y'all proposed iirc also). |
Big difference between that and nothing. |
True, although considering y'all rely on PALUDIS_EBUILD_OVERRIDE_CONFIG_PROTECT_* to actually match long standing behaviour (something left out of your RFC), the difference between 'nothing' there is rather trivial; spec put forward by you, and it's inconsistant across the managers as to how CONFIG_PROTECT actually is controllable for unmerges...
Point is, a manager can follow your one and only 'PMS' and still get differing results in configuration protection. Further, could follow that one spec, and still not support ebuilds, since CONFIG_PROTECT is a total seperate mechanism.
Ebuild spec, sure, I'd listen in; would require ironing out that lingering version comparison difference issue you dislike however.
_________________
I don't want to be buried in a pet cemetery. ~Ramones |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ferringb
Developer
Joined: 03 Apr 2003
Posts: 355
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pilla wrote: | | ciaranm wrote: |
No, you just aren't looking hard enough. |
I've searched for "Package Manager Specification" in my gentoo-dev folder and found nothing. Maybe you're being inaccurate about its name?
If I look hard enough, will I find a document that does not exist? |
Singular spec exists (with criticism of it in comments above), accessible via gmane archives.
_________________
I don't want to be buried in a pet cemetery. ~Ramones |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ciaranm
Retired Dev
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Posts: 1719
Location: In Hiding
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pilla wrote: | | ciaranm wrote: |
No, you just aren't looking hard enough. |
I've searched for "Package Manager Specification" in my gentoo-dev folder and found nothing. Maybe you're being inaccurate about its name?
If I look hard enough, will I find a document that does not exist? |
Try using the Google... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pilla
Administrator
Joined: 07 Aug 2002
Posts: 7184
Location: Pelotas, BR
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ciaranm wrote: |
Try using the Google... |
Google doesn't have access to my local gentoo-dev archive (yet).
_________________
"I'm just very selective about the reality I choose to accept." -- Calvin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ciaranm
Retired Dev
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Posts: 1719
Location: In Hiding
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pilla wrote: | | ciaranm wrote: |
Try using the Google... |
Google doesn't have access to my local gentoo-dev archive (yet). |
No, but it has access to several much more complete gentoo-dev archives... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pilla
Administrator
Joined: 07 Aug 2002
Posts: 7184
Location: Pelotas, BR
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ciaranm wrote: |
No, but it has access to several much more complete gentoo-dev archives... |
No kidding! So why would you want me to search my local archives if there are other much more complete over there?
_________________
"I'm just very selective about the reality I choose to accept." -- Calvin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dresb
n00b
Joined: 16 Sep 2004
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pilla wrote: | | ciaranm wrote: |
No, but it has access to several much more complete gentoo-dev archives... |
No kidding! So why would you want me to search my local archives if there are other much more complete over there? |
Hehehe. I just got it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
amne
Bodhisattva
Joined: 17 Nov 2002
Posts: 6377
Location: Graz / EU
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To get slightly back on topic, there is no council decision that says in any way that paludis or any other package manager besides Portage is supported on Gentoo. Once the whole specification foo is done and the council has decided that paludis is a supported package manager, we can have those threads in P&P, for the time being they should go to US.
Side note: If a it is a problem with installing the paludis ebuild via portage it should be fine in P&P unless the paludis folks prefer all paludis threads in the same forum.
_________________
Dinosaur week! (Ok, this thread is so last week) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ciaranm
Retired Dev
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Posts: 1719
Location: In Hiding
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| amne wrote: | | To get slightly back on topic, there is no council decision that says in any way that paludis or any other package manager besides Portage is supported on Gentoo. |
Er, there's no council decision that says that Portage is supported, nor is there one that says that Paludis isn't.
| Quote: | | Once the whole specification foo is done and the council has decided that paludis is a supported package manager, we can have those threads in P&P, for the time being they should go to US. |
Paludis is in the tree. Thus, it's supported. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cokehabit
Advocate
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3302
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ciaranm wrote: | | Quote: | | Once the whole specification foo is done and the council has decided that paludis is a supported package manager, we can have those threads in P&P, for the time being they should go to US. |
Paludis is in[fecting] the tree. Thus, it's supported. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ciaranm
Retired Dev
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Posts: 1719
Location: In Hiding
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cokehabit wrote: | | ciaranm wrote: | | Quote: | | Once the whole specification foo is done and the council has decided that paludis is a supported package manager, we can have those threads in P&P, for the time being they should go to US. |
Paludis is in[fecting] the tree. Thus, it's supported. |
|
Paludis is the cure, not the disease. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cokehabit
Advocate
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3302
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ciaranm wrote: | | cokehabit wrote: | | ciaranm wrote: | | Quote: | | Once the whole specification foo is done and the council has decided that paludis is a supported package manager, we can have those threads in P&P, for the time being they should go to US. |
Paludis is in[fecting] the tree. Thus, it's supported. |
|
Paludis is the cure, not the disease. |
RPM is a bigger disease, can it cure that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mark_alec
Bodhisattva
Joined: 11 Sep 2004
Posts: 6066
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ciaranm wrote: | | Er, there's no council decision that says that Portage is supported, nor is there one that says that Paludis isn't. |
_________________
www.gentoo.org.au || #gentoo-au |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Earthwings
Administrator
Joined: 14 Apr 2003
Posts: 7731
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ciaranm wrote: | | Paludis is the cure, not the disease. |
_________________
KDE 4.8 - Get It While It's Hot! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pilla
Administrator
Joined: 07 Aug 2002
Posts: 7184
Location: Pelotas, BR
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ciaranm wrote: |
Er, there's no council decision that says that Portage is supported, nor is there one that says that Paludis isn't. |
Now, that quote could be put to good use in Wikipedia as an example of Sophism in the wild.
_________________
"I'm just very selective about the reality I choose to accept." -- Calvin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kallamej
Administrator
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 4785
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ciaranm wrote: | | Paludis is in the tree. Thus, it's supported. |
Get your facts straight. Being in the tree does in no way imply that a package is supported (cf. various kernel sources).
Using (as opposed to installing) paludis (a third party package manager) is more like using some of the third party (user driven) installation methods that float around the Unsupported Software forum. Hence, questions about its use belong in that forum, unless you have your own support infrastructure. Then we will gladly move all paludis related questions to Off the Wall.
_________________
Please read our FAQ Forum, it answers many of your questions.
irc: #gentoo-forums on irc.freenode.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ciaranm
Retired Dev
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Posts: 1719
Location: In Hiding
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kallamej wrote: | | ciaranm wrote: | | Paludis is in the tree. Thus, it's supported. |
Get your facts straight. Being in the tree does in no way imply that a package is supported (cf. various kernel sources). |
Means it's supported unless the maintainers state otherwise.
You know, it's really not up to you to decide what is or is not supported. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kallamej
Administrator
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 4785
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ciaranm wrote: | | kallamej wrote: | | ciaranm wrote: | | Paludis is in the tree. Thus, it's supported. |
Get your facts straight. Being in the tree does in no way imply that a package is supported (cf. various kernel sources). |
Means it's supported unless the maintainers state otherwise.
You know, it's really not up to you to decide what is or is not supported. |
No no, you said that being in the tree implies that something is supported, and I showed that that statement is incorrect. If the maintainers of the paludis ebuild support more than the installation of the package, they are free to provide that support in Unsupported Software.
_________________
Please read our FAQ Forum, it answers many of your questions.
irc: #gentoo-forums on irc.freenode.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ciaranm
Retired Dev
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Posts: 1719
Location: In Hiding
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kallamej wrote: | | ciaranm wrote: | | kallamej wrote: | | ciaranm wrote: | | Paludis is in the tree. Thus, it's supported. |
Get your facts straight. Being in the tree does in no way imply that a package is supported (cf. various kernel sources). |
Means it's supported unless the maintainers state otherwise.
You know, it's really not up to you to decide what is or is not supported. |
No no, you said that being in the tree implies that something is supported, and I showed that that statement is incorrect. |
Which doesn't mean that Paludis is unsupported. So, I'll rephrase:
Paludis is in the tree, and the people maintaining the Paludis package haven't said it's unsupported. Thus, it's supported.
| Quote: | | If the maintainers of the paludis ebuild support more than the installation of the package, they are free to provide that support in Unsupported Software. |
Why not move all questions about how to use KDE into Unsupported Software too?
Again, whether or not something is supported is not your decision. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kallamej
Administrator
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 4785
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ciaranm wrote: | | Paludis is in the tree, and the people maintaining the Paludis package haven't said it's unsupported. Thus, it's supported. |
Maybe you should try to write what you mean in the first place instead of spreading false statements.
| ciaranm wrote: | | Again, whether or not something is supported is not your decision. |
Similarly, it's not your decision where questions related to third party installation methods belong.
_________________
Please read our FAQ Forum, it answers many of your questions.
irc: #gentoo-forums on irc.freenode.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ciaranm
Retired Dev
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Posts: 1719
Location: In Hiding
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kallamej wrote: | | ciaranm wrote: | | Paludis is in the tree, and the people maintaining the Paludis package haven't said it's unsupported. Thus, it's supported. |
Maybe you should try to write what you mean in the first place instead of spreading false statements. |
I'm sorry, I was assuming I was talking to sane people, not people who deliberately go around picking obscure holes to avoid addressing the issue at hand.
| Quote: | | ciaranm wrote: | | Again, whether or not something is supported is not your decision. |
Similarly, it's not your decision where questions related to third party installation methods belong. |
Paludis is not a third party installation method. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Off the Wall
