| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> said: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 19:10:58 +0200 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Robert Buchholz <rbu@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > our current VCS is inhibiting development and innovation. our |
| 6 |
> > > > repo layout is not! |
| 7 |
> > > |
| 8 |
> > > I would say it is (exherbo is a half-decent example of something I |
| 9 |
> > > think is better). |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > What problems are we trying to solve? |
| 12 |
> > Why is the exherbo approach better? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> The Exherbo approach relies upon the package manager being good at |
| 15 |
> dealing with larger numbers of interdependent repositories. Unless |
| 16 |
> you've got a way of making Portage support things like repository deps, |
| 17 |
> unavailable-format repositories [1] and multiple repositories with |
| 18 |
> multiple dependencies, switching is going to make things pretty much |
| 19 |
> unusable for anyone using Portage... |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
which is a perfect example for why the repo layout discussion should not |
| 22 |
be dragged into this. lets switch to something better now (a better VCS) |
| 23 |
and then to something even better (a nicer repo layout) afterwards. if we |
| 24 |
take up the repo layout discussion we will be going nowhere... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
yes - i want pink ponies too. but for now, i'll settle for purple ones... |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> [1]: |
| 29 |
> http://ciaranm.wordpress.com/2008/06/12/dealing-with-lots-of-repositori |
| 30 |
>es/ |
Archives