| 1 |
On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 18:40 +0100, Jakob Buchgraber wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> So why don't you start rewriting, refactoring and improving the portage |
| 5 |
> source? It definitely doesn't make sense to create a competing package |
| 6 |
> management system. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
How is this useful, honestly? Ciaran's exercising his strengths: the |
| 9 |
paludis team have been taking a long hard look at portage, what it does, |
| 10 |
and what it should do, and making a spec/requirements doc out of it, and |
| 11 |
then coding to that. Portage itself is a bit of a frankenstein (an |
| 12 |
evolved proof of concept, if you will) -- its evolution hasn't really |
| 13 |
been "designed." The portage developers have, over the years, done |
| 14 |
their best to try and refactor and improve the source. But let's be |
| 15 |
honest, starting from scratch given the requirements up front is a |
| 16 |
*very* valid approach. I think Ciaran should be applauded on paludis. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Thanks, |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Seemant |
Archives