1 |
Anant Narayanan wrote: |
2 |
> Hi Mike, |
3 |
> |
4 |
> On 31-Mar-07, at 2:21 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
5 |
>> not really, why dont you apply some of your logic: |
6 |
>> - you are not wanted as an official Gentoo developer ... the past |
7 |
>> clearly |
8 |
>> shows this |
9 |
>> - the official package manager of Gentoo would need to be |
10 |
>> completely "in-house" with respect to control, direction, etc... |
11 |
>> - "in-house" would require every one who is control of the package |
12 |
>> manager to |
13 |
>> be a Gentoo developer |
14 |
>> - in order for you to gain @gentoo.org again, we'd need either a |
15 |
>> complete |
16 |
>> flush of developer blood who would accept you or you to change |
17 |
>> yourself ... |
18 |
>> neither of which are realistic |
19 |
>> |
20 |
>> so let's put this all together shall we: |
21 |
>> you are in full control of paludis, you will not be a Gentoo developer, |
22 |
>> thereforce paludis will not be the official Gentoo package manager |
23 |
> |
24 |
> The logic is flawed. I don't understand why Gentoo can't switch to |
25 |
> paludis so long as there are "in-house" Gentoo developers ready to |
26 |
> maintain and support it. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> <snip> |
29 |
>> "emerge" is a brand name for Gentoo and while you can complain about |
30 |
>> lack of |
31 |
>> features all you want, dropping portage and installing a different |
32 |
>> package |
33 |
>> manager with a completely different interface will surely causes a |
34 |
>> huge pita |
35 |
>> for everyone |
36 |
> |
37 |
> It is a rather trivial issue to wrap paludis or pkgcore commands to |
38 |
> their "emerge" equivalents. As discussed before on the thread, mere |
39 |
> command-line compatibility is not an issue at all. If a switch is made |
40 |
> to a new package, I am sure enough steps will be taken to ensure that |
41 |
> the process is as transparent as possible, and most users will not even |
42 |
> notice the difference; except of course the immediate benefits. |
43 |
> |
44 |
> Cheers, |
45 |
> -- |
46 |
> Anant |
47 |
> --gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
48 |
> |
49 |
No one is proposing that Gentoo "switch" to anything at this point. |
50 |
|
51 |
Speaking from a documentation perspective, it's actually more of a task |
52 |
than you'd think. Command wrappers to emerge etc. are one thing, but the |
53 |
output produced is another. Not to mention the fact that Paludis can't |
54 |
do things that Portage does, and vice versa. It's not a 1:1 drop-in |
55 |
replacement, and no one should say it is. |
56 |
|
57 |
There'd be a helluva lot of documentation to rewrite, for both /doc/en/ |
58 |
(which the GDP oversees) as well as the many docs in the various /proj/ |
59 |
spaces. |
60 |
|
61 |
For the forseeable future, since we can't go on vague statements from |
62 |
either camp of "feature foo will be ready in, oh, about $x releases", |
63 |
Portage is here to stay. It's not being replaced by anything. |