1 |
> I fail to understand why the portage developers would refuse to |
2 |
> accept a patch that actually improves something (without causing |
3 |
> major regressions i.e.). If they do refuse such a patch (for |
4 |
> political reasons), then we have a serious problem. However, based on |
5 |
> past experience with the portage developers, I doubt this would happen. |
6 |
|
7 |
Again, portage's lack of design isn't exactly conducive to accepting |
8 |
features. Having said that, it's taken this long to even get its |
9 |
behaviour documented (see PMS). Now that the spec exists, anyone can |
10 |
write a tool to reach the spec. |
11 |
|
12 |
> I base that on the fact that all developers are more or less |
13 |
> "equally" capable of making a technical decision. Maybe I am wrong. |
14 |
|
15 |
Less than 1% of gentoo developers interact directly with portage |
16 |
internals. So, provided the other 99% don't have to drastically switch |
17 |
how they interact with the development tool (and provided the users |
18 |
don't have to switch how they interact with the package manager), it |
19 |
doesn't matter much what's under the hood, does it? Surely, things like |
20 |
compatibility symlinks and such would go part of the ways to alleviating |
21 |
that sort of pain. As for being equal to the task of making the |
22 |
decision -- I'm certainly not. There are definitely developers who are |
23 |
more intimate with that area of development (even outside the portage |
24 |
team) whose opinions would weigh a lot heavier than mine, as an example. |
25 |
|
26 |
|
27 |
> I wasn't indicating that a "popularity" contest should be held, |
28 |
> because I trust the developers will cast their vote only after |
29 |
> *technically* evaluating the options. I also don't think it's fair |
30 |
> for a small minority of developers to make the switch on behalf of |
31 |
> the rest of us, which is why I mentioned a number like "50%". An |
32 |
> election is not always political ;) |
33 |
|
34 |
See above: not every developer is technically capable of evaluating the |
35 |
underpinnings of the tools we use. For most of us, those underpinnings |
36 |
do not matter. |
37 |
|
38 |
|
39 |
|
40 |
> Agreed. But if so many of us do think that there are better package |
41 |
> managers out there that do a magnificent job of utilizing the tree, |
42 |
> then I fail to understand why no-one is seriously considering a switch? |
43 |
|
44 |
Well, you can take some of the QA people who actually use pkgcore and |
45 |
paludis based tools to do what they do. You can also take the fact that |
46 |
Gentoo developers are actively involving themselves in pkgcore and |
47 |
paludis developments. You can also consider the fact that the council |
48 |
has asked for the PMS in order to present the community with a clear |
49 |
picture of current behaviour, expected behaviour and future behaviour of |
50 |
the package management we have. From there, it's not a big jump to then |
51 |
choose an alternate as the one that most adheres to the spec and make |
52 |
that one official, surely? Just because there is no widespread |
53 |
concerted effort to switch does not mean that there is no impetus to |
54 |
switch or that nobody is considering it seriously. The fact is that |
55 |
people are, we're just all in the exploratory stage still. |
56 |
|
57 |
|
58 |
> Ok, I'm sure a lot of us agree on the fact that portage is |
59 |
> technically outdated and is Gentoo's own "Frankenstein". Time for a |
60 |
> replacement, but what do you think would be the repercussions of |
61 |
> proposing something like that? If they are not catastrophic, might I |
62 |
> initiate such a proposal? |
63 |
|
64 |
It's probably a little early to initiate such a proposal, seeing as the |
65 |
PMS is still undergoing review. Why don't we just let the current |
66 |
course of events continue, instead of trying to force any specific |
67 |
issue? I'm sure that if the council decides to initiate a project to |
68 |
seriously pursue replacing portage as the official package manager, they |
69 |
will take into account these repercussions of which you speak. At the |
70 |
very least, you can bring them up at that time. |
71 |
|
72 |
I'm probably not the most qualified to speak on this subject, but I |
73 |
assume Ciaran and Brian and their respective teams both have ways (or |
74 |
can quickly think them up) to make the transition easier, should it come |
75 |
up. But again, it's probably a little early in the game for that. |
76 |
|
77 |
Thanks, |
78 |
|
79 |
Seemant |