| 1 |
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:16:43 +0100 |
| 2 |
Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Stephen P. Becker wrote: |
| 5 |
> >> So (without a Portage tree) it replaces the oldgrown single-liner |
| 6 |
> >> wget foo; tar -xzf foo; cd foo; ./configure; make; make install |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Are you implying that there would be much more involved with |
| 9 |
> > anything currently in the gentoo tree in the absence of portage? |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > /me cracks the bell |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> Er the discussion was about paludis without Gentoo ebuilds, not |
| 14 |
> upstream software, or Gentoo without its package-manager(?!) If it's |
| 15 |
> so great and "The Portage tree is not the only package repository out |
| 16 |
> there..." why not prove it with a whole maintainable OS install using |
| 17 |
> Paludis and zero Gentoo ebuilds? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Indeed, it was about paludis without gentoo tree ebuilds. If you can't |
| 20 |
understand the flow of the conversation, I don't know what to tell |
| 21 |
you other than to re-read the thread. The point is, there are other |
| 22 |
repositories out there that paludis can use that aren't the main gentoo |
| 23 |
tree. Beejay asked somebody to elaborate, so I did. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> Personally, I'd do Paludis for sourcemage, although I don't know |
| 27 |
> whether anyone would want to switch from the approved package manager |
| 28 |
> on that distro either. Still, since it's so amazing, I am sure you |
| 29 |
> would be able to prove it was better, and it would win on technical |
| 30 |
> merit. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I don't see what that has to do with anything here, and I'm not trying |
| 33 |
to prove anything. I entered this conversation stating simple facts, |
| 34 |
and you took it well out of bounds. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> (BTW posting links to an external website's code when specifically |
| 38 |
> asked about algorithms on a developer list is bad form imo. It |
| 39 |
> presumes on the time of your audience, some of whom actually work, |
| 40 |
> and might have intellectual property constraints on whose code they |
| 41 |
> can read. In future please just outline the algorithm for the issue |
| 42 |
> at hand, if you have one.) |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
OK, now I'm really confused. Who posted a link, and what does this |
| 45 |
statement have to do with anything related to this current discussion? |
| 46 |
Seriously, I'd like to know, because I certainly didn't paste any link, |
| 47 |
yet you replied directly to me. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
-Steve |
Archives