Re: [gentoo-dev] [soc] Python bindings for Paludis

[Thomas Rösner]

Hi,

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Have a look at [1] and all the open "Portage should..." bugs. Would
> any of those improve the user experience for you? Can you think of
> other features of a similar nature that would make your life easier?
>

Funny thing is: the only thing that I'd really care about are the USE 
deps. But to actually get those, it's not enough to use paludis, you'd 
have to have an ebuild tree that actually provides them. Then you'd get 
things like sane split up of monolith upstream packages, a way to 
implement multilib without binary packages, and other things I can't 
think of right now.

Other things I want from Gentoo right now depend on factors other than 
the package manager, too; prebuilt packages, slow-moving tree, 
binary-breakage protection (and pre-upgrade notices of major changes). 
If you could cast a spell that got those features in, I'd happily wait 
30 minutes for emerge -Duvat world...

So to have an incentive to switch to paludis, it would have to be a 
supported Gentoo package manager, which drives what devs put into the 
tree. And to get there, it would have to get the masses to switch to 
paludis... So I think to get anywhere with all of this is to figure out 
ways to add the features to the tree without breaking portage (for the 
use flag dep example: let portage die on not matched use flag deps just 
like it does now in pkg_setup for the manual use flag checks; real 
support would of course mean reemerging the package in question with the 
right flags). And then, if portage really can't keep up with the pace of 
changes, alternatives would *have* to be considered.

Am I making sense?

> That Portage works does not mean that it is anywhere near ideal...
>

Nothing ever will be. :)

Regards,
    Thomas
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list