| 1 |
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Richard Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> So, in my opinion, you are just a pro-paludis troll. |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> And from what I can see, trolls are the prefered audience and power behind |
| 7 |
>> paludis. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Guys - let's try to keep this civil! |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> There are lots of folks who use and like paludis who aren't trolls. I'm |
| 12 |
> among them. The main thing I like is that the dependency management tends |
| 13 |
> to work better than portage (or at least better than how portage used to |
| 14 |
> work). It also has better native support for overlays, and it is a bit more |
| 15 |
> actively developed. It also seems much faster to me - or at least it used |
| 16 |
> to be (actually - I use portage so infrequently these days that it seems to |
| 17 |
> take forever just to regenerate its various caches when I do use it - |
| 18 |
> perhaps if I used emerge --sync that might behave differently). |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> On the other hand, I do understand the attitude issues associated with some |
| 21 |
> of the key developers and as pointed out in the FAQ quote it tends to show. |
| 22 |
> I'm not sure I'd actively evangelize for its use as a result. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
.. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> My recommendation is to look into paludis - and feel free to try it out. Be |
| 27 |
> aware of its advantages and limitations. Then make the appropriate |
| 28 |
> decision. As Duncan pointed out it isn't an ideal package manager if you |
| 29 |
> use binary packages frequently. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Couldn't have said it more elegantly myself. ++ |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
avuton |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
"I've got a fever. And the only prescription is more cowbell." -- |
| 36 |
Christopher Walken |
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-amd64@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives