Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@×××××××.org>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [soc] Python bindings for Paludis
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:38:03
Message-Id: 20070330193517.1c84fda1@snowflake
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [soc] Python bindings for Paludis by Mike Frysinger
1 On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:04:15 -0400
2 Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote:
3 > On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
4 > > Do you acknowledge that Portage is a severe limiting factor when it
5 > > comes to improving the Gentoo user experience as a whole?
6 >
7 > what a lame question ... rather than waste time on this, why dont we
8 > get to some relevant issues ...
10 Gentoo's lack of progress is an extremely relevant issue...
12 > to start with, Paludis will never be an official package manager for
13 > Gentoo so long as you are heavily involved. now that we've put a
14 > bolt right between the eyes of that pink elephant, how about we
15 > address some other things as well ...
17 Ah, resorting to ad hominem. Is that the best you can manage? Is the
18 best excuse you can provide to users for denying them the things they
19 want and need "waah! ciaranm boogeyman!"?
21 > since you're obviously going to complain about Gentoo's official
22 > package manager so long as $pkgmgr != paludis without any intentions
23 > of helping address limitations you raise (nor am i expecting you to),
24 > why dont you do us all a favor and clamp it. constantly pointing out
25 > that $pkgmgr sucks and $pkgmgr does not support xxx and $pkgmgr has
26 > this limitation or that stupid design decision and that paludis is
27 > the be all end all solution to our problems does not accomplish
28 > anything ... it merely serves to piss us all off
30 No no, I'd be quite happy with any package manager that meets my needs
31 and the needs of other people. Portage is not such a package manager,
32 and, let's face it, never will be. The continuing delusion that Portage
33 will somehow magically improve and allow Gentoo to keep up with other
34 distributions is largely why Gentoo is stuck where it is.
36 > a good topic for the next council meeting i think would be to start
37 > up a spec of requirements that a package manager must satisfy before
38 > it'd be an official package manager for Gentoo ... off the top of my
39 > head:
40 > - the main developers need to be Gentoo developers
41 > - source code hosted on Gentoo infrastructure
42 > - compatible "emerge" and "ebuild" binaries
44 As you know fine well, the Council has already rejected GLEP 49, which
45 says more or less that. As you also know fine well, those requirements
46 mean Gentoo will permanently be stuck with Portage (and when dreaming
47 up silly and biased requirements, bear in mind that Portage was at one
48 point close to being moved off Gentoo infrastructure because of the huge
49 delays in setting up svn...).
51 If you're looking for serious topics to discuss in this area, how about
52 the following?
54 "Is Portage severely limiting Gentoo's progress and future direction?
55 What limits need to be removed in the next month, six months and year
56 in order for Gentoo to get closer to its goal of providing 'near-ideal'
57 tools and to regain its competitive edge? What steps can be taken to
58 facilitate this?"
60 --
61 Ciaran McCreesh


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


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] [soc] Python bindings for Paludis Homer Parker <hparker@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] [soc] Python bindings for Paludis Larry Lines <larry@××××××××××.com>
Re: [gentoo-dev] [soc] Python bindings for Paludis Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>