1 |
On Friday 30 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> > - you are not wanted as an official Gentoo developer ... the past |
3 |
> > clearly shows this |
4 |
> |
5 |
> Not really... The process by which I became an unofficial Gentoo |
6 |
> developer was so flawed that it got replaced as a result... |
7 |
|
8 |
sure, the first time ... the second time around, the state of the developer |
9 |
mass was simply too disrupted by your existence |
10 |
|
11 |
> > - the official package manager of Gentoo would need to be |
12 |
> > completely "in-house" with respect to control, direction, etc... |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Justify that. What does being in-house have to do with having control? |
15 |
> Are you claiming that if the Council asks for a feature to be added to |
16 |
> Portage that it will be added, or that if the Council asks for a |
17 |
> feature to be added to Paludis that it wouldn't? |
18 |
|
19 |
with the package manager in house, none of these things are an issue. we dont |
20 |
have to worry about external developers pulling crap like closing down a |
21 |
repository and thus denying other developers access. |
22 |
|
23 |
allowing the official package manager for Gentoo to be disrupted is not |
24 |
acceptable. |
25 |
|
26 |
> You're assuming that the majority of developers had anything to do with |
27 |
> or cared remotely about any of that. |
28 |
|
29 |
feel free to maintain whatever delusions you like |
30 |
|
31 |
> But first and foremost, you missed |
32 |
> the part about me *wanting* to gain an @gentoo.org address, which isn't |
33 |
> going to happen so long as the disadvantages outweigh whatever gain |
34 |
> it's supposed to give... |
35 |
|
36 |
then you agree it's not going to happen, good |
37 |
|
38 |
> > so let's put this all together shall we: |
39 |
> > you are in full control of paludis, you will not be a Gentoo |
40 |
> > developer, thereforce paludis will not be the official Gentoo package |
41 |
> > manager |
42 |
> |
43 |
> By that logic, Linux can't be the official Gentoo kernel and GCC can't |
44 |
> be the official Gentoo compiler, which is clearly silly. |
45 |
|
46 |
not the same ... ignoring the fact that there are no real alternatives to |
47 |
these packages, "Gentoo" is not "Linux" nor is it "GCC" ... you can use it in |
48 |
conjunction with other kernels and toolchains |
49 |
|
50 |
> > > No no, I'd be quite happy with any package manager that meets my |
51 |
> > > needs and the needs of other people. Portage is not such a package |
52 |
> > > manager, and, let's face it, never will be. The continuing |
53 |
> > > delusion that Portage will somehow magically improve and allow |
54 |
> > > Gentoo to keep up with other distributions is largely why Gentoo is |
55 |
> > > stuck where it is. |
56 |
> > |
57 |
> > there's a magic pill if i ever saw one ... the only available package |
58 |
> > managers at the moment that satisfy your requirements is paludis ... |
59 |
> > therefore see previous statements |
60 |
> |
61 |
> *shrug* That's hardly my fault, is it? |
62 |
|
63 |
it is your fault you wont shut it ... constantly complaining about the faults |
64 |
of other package mangers is not constructive when you dont indend to do |
65 |
anything about it except whine the projects into non-existence |
66 |
|
67 |
> No, it just so happens that they deliberately exclude the only two |
68 |
> current viable alternatives to Portage, and experience suggests that |
69 |
> it's going to take a substantial amount of time for anyone to come |
70 |
> up with a third one... |
71 |
|
72 |
you're right, i'm going to go ahead and exclude the ability for anything to |
73 |
become the official powerhouse of Gentoo when it interferes so profoundly |
74 |
with anyone using Gentoo |
75 |
|
76 |
> > "emerge" is a brand name for Gentoo and while you can complain about |
77 |
> > lack of features all you want, dropping portage and installing a |
78 |
> > different package manager with a completely different interface will |
79 |
> > surely causes a huge pita for everyone |
80 |
> |
81 |
> In the same way that "dselect" is a brand name for Debian? |
82 |
|
83 |
you're confusing dselect with apt-get which is a well-known name aspect of |
84 |
Debian |
85 |
-mike |