Le lundi 11 juin 2012 à 19:48 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh a écrit : > On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 20:41:37 +0200 > Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > No, your goal is to provide a distribution. Gentoo has repeatedly > > > shot itself in the foot, leg, groin etc by favouring short-term > > > hacks over a well thought out, validated, self-enforcing design. > > > Right now nearly all of the package manager work is on paying off > > > previously incurred technical debt, and in the mean time you're > > > busy adding to it. > > > > The problem here is that we (or, at least, I) are a bit unsure about > > how this could be handled better and, then, try to use that better > > way in the future. If you (or any) have some suggestion, it would be > > nice :) > > It is handled better by working out what exactly the problem is, and if > you can't implement it nicely using existing features, then not > implementing it at all until you have suitable features. >
Sorry to make this old thread pop up again but, no, it is not acceptable to not ship packages like webkit just because you dislike the solution we used to workaround a well known problem in ebuild packaging. FTR, this solution may have problems, that you are free to highlight, but it is has been carefully thought out to not be too much of a burden for devs and users alike. When someone comes up with a solution that is accepted for PMS, we will be more than happy to switch to it. So please stop complaining and do what you are best known for, find a solution that can fit PMS. TIA. -- Gilles Dartiguelongue <e...@gentoo.org> Gentoo
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
