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/ |