| 1 |
On Wed, 17 May 2006 16:21:13 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <carlo@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| > Nice idea in theory. In reality, Portage is a big incestuous mess |
| 4 |
| > and can't have that kind of change made to it |
| 5 |
| |
| 6 |
| The former yes, the latter statement is questionable. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Not really. It's why everyone is busy rewriting Portage. The code |
| 9 |
simply isn't modular enough to make ripping out any particular |
| 10 |
component viable. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
| > , and defining such an |
| 13 |
| > interface between package manager parts would take considerably more |
| 14 |
| > time and code than just rewriting the whole thing. |
| 15 |
| |
| 16 |
| That won't mean you face the same situation at one point again, so |
| 17 |
| you likely have to spent the same or even more amount of time, just |
| 18 |
| over a longer time frame. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
And no matter how many times people end up rewriting things, doing a |
| 21 |
generic future-proof cross-language interface that supports everything |
| 22 |
that *might* be done in the future is going to take so long that it |
| 23 |
will never actually get written. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
| > Having said that, |
| 26 |
| > you can swap around pretty much any component of Paludis, since it's |
| 27 |
| > proper modular code -- Kugelfang has a mostly working |
| 28 |
| > implementation of a CRAN repository, for example. |
| 29 |
| |
| 30 |
| Doesn't sound like independent runtime components, as I am proposing. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
It's compile time at present, simply because no-one considers it worth |
| 33 |
the effort of screwing around with .so files until it's really really |
| 34 |
necessary. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 38 |
Mail : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives