Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Josh Saddler <nightmorph@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [soc] Python bindings for Paludis
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 23:20:30
Message-Id: 460D9A17.9060300@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [soc] Python bindings for Paludis by Anant Narayanan
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.

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature