1 |
2008/5/31 Richard Freeman <rich0@g.o>: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> So, in my opinion, you are just a pro-paludis troll. |
6 |
>> |
7 |
>> And from what I can see, trolls are the prefered audience and power behind |
8 |
>> paludis. |
9 |
>> |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Guys - let's try to keep this civil! |
12 |
> |
13 |
> There are lots of folks who use and like paludis who aren't trolls. I'm |
14 |
> among them. The main thing I like is that the dependency management tends |
15 |
> to work better than portage (or at least better than how portage used to |
16 |
> work). It also has better native support for overlays, and it is a bit more |
17 |
> actively developed. It also seems much faster to me - or at least it used |
18 |
> to be (actually - I use portage so infrequently these days that it seems to |
19 |
> take forever just to regenerate its various caches when I do use it - |
20 |
> perhaps if I used emerge --sync that might behave differently). |
21 |
> |
22 |
|
23 |
that's exactly the point. as i've already said on new system portage is |
24 |
quite flawly, while paludis is less flawly with deps. and the overlays |
25 |
handling and the possibility to continue builds if packages fails on various |
26 |
conditions is not a bad addition. if you emerge sync and update portage |
27 |
repository you'll just need a paludis --regenerate-installable-cache and |
28 |
you're ok. also you'll just have to remember to regenerate the installed |
29 |
cache whenever you install something with portage. |
30 |
|
31 |
|
32 |
> On the other hand, I do understand the attitude issues associated with some |
33 |
> of the key developers and as pointed out in the FAQ quote it tends to show. |
34 |
> I'm not sure I'd actively evangelize for its use as a result. |
35 |
> |
36 |
|
37 |
sometimes they have somem technical points out there but have an impulsive |
38 |
character. well, if they were in a development company they could have not |
39 |
been scolded since their work as devs isn't bad. |
40 |
|
41 |
The main thing I had feared with paludis is that at some point a need for a |
42 |
> particular feature will come along and it will be determined that real men |
43 |
> don't need that feature and I'll be stuck (while every other package manager |
44 |
> out there ends up supporting it). While this still concerns me it generally |
45 |
> hasn't happened to date, and I'm less concerned about it. However, if it |
46 |
> does happen getting my keywords migrated back to portage format will end up |
47 |
> being a minor headache... |
48 |
> |
49 |
> My recommendation is to look into paludis - and feel free to try it out. |
50 |
> Be aware of its advantages and limitations. Then make the appropriate |
51 |
> decision. As Duncan pointed out it isn't an ideal package manager if you |
52 |
> use binary packages frequently. |
53 |
|
54 |
|
55 |
i could say that for users as duncan, with need of binpkg and with a minor |
56 |
number of overlays paludis is not very good and in fact is indicated for |
57 |
people who reboot oftenly (like ati notebooks users which don't have a |
58 |
really good standby or suspend) and update world frequently and people who |
59 |
have a big deal of repos usually more than 2 repos should be good to go with |
60 |
paludis |
61 |
|
62 |
|
63 |
|
64 |
-- |
65 |
dott. ing. beso |