| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:30:36 +0100 Jakob Buchgraber |
| 3 |
> <jakob.buchgraber@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>>>> You're avoiding my point. The improvements that are being made |
| 6 |
>>>> are, by and large, insignificant. Portage doesn't need a few |
| 7 |
>>>> little tweaks now and again. It has to start delivering a whole |
| 8 |
>>>> load of major new features (there's no one killer feature), and |
| 9 |
>>>> quickly. |
| 10 |
>>>> |
| 11 |
>> Why don't you join the portage team and try to persuade the current |
| 12 |
>> portage devs and help to implement the "killer features"? |
| 13 |
>> So instead of saying that portage is missing features and developing |
| 14 |
>> your own pm you could be even more productive and help improving |
| 15 |
>> portage. Why don't ya do that? |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Because Portage is beyond repair. The code and design are so bad that |
| 19 |
> it's easier to start from scratch. Which, funnily enough, is what I |
| 20 |
> ended up doing. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
So why don't you start rewriting, refactoring and improving the portage |
| 25 |
source? It definitely doesn't make sense to create a competing package |
| 26 |
management system. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Cheers, |
| 29 |
Jay |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Join Linuxfriendlyhardware.org project on irc.freenode.org#lfh (german) |
| 33 |
Registered Linux User #373457 |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives