| 1 |
On 03/07/2018 12:52 PM, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> I'm really not happy with the tone of this email, so I'm going to |
| 4 |
> comment on it a bit. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Ok, it would have benefited from a do-I-sound-like-a-dick proofread. I |
| 8 |
don't want to sound discouraging because this is an area with lots of |
| 9 |
room for improvement. A better conclusion: |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Ultimately, people want to integrate the various PMs with portage |
| 12 |
because portage is pretty good at keeping your system reliable, |
| 13 |
up-to-date, and secure. The language-specific PMs on the other hand only |
| 14 |
care about ease of use and how fast they can get bleeding-edge releases |
| 15 |
to you. Having both would be ideal, but if we simply shell out to the |
| 16 |
language-specific PM, then that would sidestep the good parts of portage |
| 17 |
making the integration pointless. The time and attention involved in |
| 18 |
ebuild packaging turn out to be critical parts of the product. |
Archives