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