1 |
Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: |
2 |
> So, in my opinion, you are just a pro-paludis troll. |
3 |
> |
4 |
> And from what I can see, trolls are the prefered audience and power behind |
5 |
> paludis. |
6 |
|
7 |
Guys - let's try to keep this civil! |
8 |
|
9 |
There are lots of folks who use and like paludis who aren't trolls. I'm |
10 |
among them. The main thing I like is that the dependency management |
11 |
tends to work better than portage (or at least better than how portage |
12 |
used to work). It also has better native support for overlays, and it |
13 |
is a bit more actively developed. It also seems much faster to me - or |
14 |
at least it used to be (actually - I use portage so infrequently these |
15 |
days that it seems to take forever just to regenerate its various caches |
16 |
when I do use it - perhaps if I used emerge --sync that might behave |
17 |
differently). |
18 |
|
19 |
On the other hand, I do understand the attitude issues associated with |
20 |
some of the key developers and as pointed out in the FAQ quote it tends |
21 |
to show. I'm not sure I'd actively evangelize for its use as a result. |
22 |
|
23 |
The main thing I had feared with paludis is that at some point a need |
24 |
for a particular feature will come along and it will be determined that |
25 |
real men don't need that feature and I'll be stuck (while every other |
26 |
package manager out there ends up supporting it). While this still |
27 |
concerns me it generally hasn't happened to date, and I'm less concerned |
28 |
about it. However, if it does happen getting my keywords migrated back |
29 |
to portage format will end up being a minor headache... |
30 |
|
31 |
My recommendation is to look into paludis - and feel free to try it out. |
32 |
Be aware of its advantages and limitations. Then make the appropriate |
33 |
decision. As Duncan pointed out it isn't an ideal package manager if |
34 |
you use binary packages frequently. |
35 |
-- |
36 |
gentoo-amd64@l.g.o mailing list |