| 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 |
Archives