1 |
El lun, 11-06-2012 a las 18:08 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: |
2 |
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:15:40 +0100 |
3 |
> Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> > On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Ciaran McCreesh |
5 |
> > <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
6 |
> > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 21:45:27 +0100 |
7 |
> > > Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@g.o> wrote: |
8 |
> > >> It's a simple workaround for the lack of proper ebuild namespacing |
9 |
> > >> on the basis of slots. |
10 |
> > >> |
11 |
> > >> So, till we have that, this works pretty well. :) |
12 |
> > > |
13 |
> > > Until you have that, or something else designed to do what you want, |
14 |
> > > don't come up with some disgusting hack. |
15 |
> > |
16 |
> > So the PMS process should be a bottleneck to getting software out to |
17 |
> > users? I think that's counter-productive. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> There is no PMS bottleneck. There is a Portage bottleneck, and there is |
20 |
> a "figuring out how to ensure new features don't interact badly with |
21 |
> either old features or stupid hacks people have done". Abuse of the |
22 |
> kind under discussion is a large contributor to both of those |
23 |
> bottlenecks. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> > Our goal here is not to facilitate package manager development but to |
26 |
> > package and distribute software to users. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> No, your goal is to provide a distribution. Gentoo has repeatedly shot |
29 |
> itself in the foot, leg, groin etc by favouring short-term hacks over a |
30 |
> well thought out, validated, self-enforcing design. Right now nearly |
31 |
> all of the package manager work is on paying off previously incurred |
32 |
> technical debt, and in the mean time you're busy adding to it. |
33 |
> |
34 |
|
35 |
The problem here is that we (or, at least, I) are a bit unsure about how |
36 |
this could be handled better and, then, try to use that better way in |
37 |
the future. If you (or any) have some suggestion, it would be nice :) |