[gentoo-amd64] Re: KDE 4.0.4 upgrade, sort of.

[Duncan]

"Hemmann, Volker Armin" <volker.armin.hemmann@××××××××××××.de> posted
200805302216.07276.volker.armin.hemmann@××××××××××××.de, excerpted below,
on  Fri, 30 May 2008 22:16:06 +0200:

> On Freitag, 30. Mai 2008, Duncan wrote:
>
>> I've not done paludis due to its lack of binary package support.  Even
>> tho I'm running only a single computer
>
> there is another reason not to use paludis:
>
> you can't go back.
>
> At least not easily.

Holey moley!  I didn't think I was opening up such a can of worms as the 
subthread indicates! =8^(

FWIW and FWIR (from what I've read) paludis does have a portage 
compatibility mode.  Ciaranm was originally against it (didn't see the 
need), but after it became clear that any ultimate claimant to the status 
off official Gentoo package manager would at least during the transition 
need to maintain compatibility, so people could switch if they needed to, 
compatibility mode was added.

Now, I'm not sure how well it works in practice and I'm really not 
interested at this point because without binary package support, it's 
nothing I'm interested in anyway, but the support is officially there, 
and if it doesn't work, that would be a bug.

Of course, merging out-of-tree packages that portage doesn't support does 
sort of leave you high and dry in terms of switching back, but then, that 
would be part of the deal, rather a feature than a bug.  However, that 
doesn't lessen it as a concern for people who do consider the ability to 
switch back important.  

So when I read that the KDE-SVN overlay was going EAPI=kde1, which only 
paludis supported, I thought to myself just as well, then, that I had 
finally found time to test it before that and had made the decision that 
KDE4 trunk simply wasn't going to fit my needs for awhile.

> With pkgcore you can switch between pkgcore and portage 'on the fly'.
> emerge app a, pmerge app b, emerge app c.
>
> The config files are not touched.

It's obvious which side of the fence you stand on, but that's not such a 
bad thing. =8^)  As I said, I hadn't intended for this thread to go where 
it went -- I thought I was asking a rather innocent question -- but be 
that as it may, I had been somewhat curious about pkgcore since paludis 
seems to have the more active (combative at times, but ehh) following, so 
there's more info out (some good, some not so good) about paludis than 
about pkgcore.

So seeing someone that's actually using pkgcore is helpful. =8^)

> Paludis on the other hand can only described with 'vendor lock in' and
> 'gratuitous incompatibilty'. And don't forget that it is slow.

Now this... well, let's just say it's uncalled-for.

As explained above, it does have a compatibility mode.  Further, from all 
the remarks I've seen about paludis, from users, supporters, detractors, 
Gentoo and paludis devs and non-devs alike, this is the first time I've 
seen paludis referred to as "slow".  Rather, everyone (else), including 
detractors who severely criticise it for other reasons, seems to agree 
that speed is not one of its failings -- certainly not as opposed to 
portage.  

(I've run into fewer direct comparisons between paludis and pkgcore, 
simply due to the fact that pkgcore devs and users seem to be much more 
inclined to just get on with their business and less apt to be raving 
about how good it is wherever they go.  While the resulting lack of 
widely visible info on pkgcore can be frustrating at times, this less 
combative attitude is certainly appreciated by some.  But then you come 
in with this subthread and change all that...)

> That it also requires a shitload of dependencies and installs more crap
> than portage and pkgcore combined doesn't make it better.

That'd certainly be in the eye of the beholder.  While I'm a KDE person, 
I can empathize with the GNOME folks who hesitate to install what might 
otherwise be a better KDE app solution (such as k3b), because of all the 
KDE "crap dependencies" it brings with it.  Why?  Because I take the same 
position in regard to GNOME apps.  However, a more mature way to express 
the same dependency issues when discussing an app is to mention that it's 
a KDE (or GNOME) app, with the requisite dependencies (note, nothing 
about shit or crap), so people who use the other desktop may have 
legitimate concerns about dependencies if they don't already use other 
apps requiring this desktop.

Same here.  Doing an emerge --pretend paludis, it doesn't have /that/ 
unreasonable a list of new merges, and a good share of the ones it /does/ 
have are simply null-package virtuals, already filled by newer gcc 
versions, but with further dependencies if you are still stuck on older 
gcc (3.x, 4.0, even 4.1).  That doesn't make them "crap dependencies", it 
just means the developers are making the most of tools already available 
to them in newer gcc/g++/libstdc++, that users of older gcc versions have 
to merge separately.  This isn't even as bad as the GNOME/KDE thing 
above, because eventually, everyone using gcc/g++ will already have the 
functionality built in, and unlike the GNOME/KDE thing, that's going to 
be pretty much everyone in the open source community.

> At a last point: don't forget WHO is behind paludis - some of the most
> abusive persons gentoo has ever seen. The same people responsible for
> most problems.
>
> Abusive, agressive, searching for stuff that is not covered by rules,
> behave like a rabid ape until everything is covered by rules,
> suffocating gentoo and then turn into rule nazis and game the system.
> Yes, this people are behind paludis - and 'exherbo'.

Umm... the pot calling the kettle black?  I might agree with some of what 
you say, but this wasn't and isn't the time and the place to debate all 
that or to bring it up.  Doing so simply makes you (and what you are 
attempting to defend by running everything else down, pkgcore in this 
case) look as bad as you say they are.

Until this subthread, I had a bit of respect for pkgcore, because as I 
mentioned above, its developers and users seem to be more concerned with 
just having something that works, rather than being all aggressive about 
it.  I'm glad I finally found someone to talk about it.  I'm rather less 
enthused about the way chosen to do so.  Hopefully, that's an exception 
rather than the rule, as so far it has seemed to be.

So... um... let's try to keep this civil, shall we?  I pointed out a 
possible issue in the form of asking a question, and... it does seem I 
did get one response, from Beso (thanks Beso =8^), directly on point.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-amd64@l.g.o mailing list