On Tuesday 28 February 2006 15:47, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:34:49 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > | Once that is supported, I'm also sure that those people involved will > | be more than happy to fix their ebuilds to use those features. I do > | agree with them though that the distribution should not be held back > | by missing features in portage. Especially since those features have > | been missing (recognized as such) for ages. > > So until then, it's perfectly OK to screw over our users and fellow > developers by committing any arbitrary mess to the tree and claiming > that it's alright because Portage doesn't offer a perfect alternative?
No, not in an arbitrary way. Those fixes should be discussed, and the path of least problems chosen. Waiting on portage to catch on however has shown to be a dead end. One of the reasons that webapp-config was developed is exactly because of the fact that portage does not offer certain features (although I don't know whether portage should offer these). What I mean is that if portage is a limiting factor, we should try to find a solution that allows incorporation of the package or feature instead of not having it. Doing so is only alright when it has been properly discussed. It is not alright to just introduce mess. There is indeed no strict line between the two. That's where QA comes in. To make the judgement. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgpY0jenv87fX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
