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