| 1 |
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:30:36 +0100 Jakob Buchgraber |
| 2 |
<jakob.buchgraber@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> >> You're avoiding my point. The improvements that are being made |
| 4 |
> >> are, by and large, insignificant. Portage doesn't need a few |
| 5 |
> >> little tweaks now and again. It has to start delivering a whole |
| 6 |
> >> load of major new features (there's no one killer feature), and |
| 7 |
> >> quickly. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Why don't you join the portage team and try to persuade the current |
| 10 |
> portage devs and help to implement the "killer features"? |
| 11 |
> So instead of saying that portage is missing features and developing |
| 12 |
> your own pm you could be even more productive and help improving |
| 13 |
> portage. Why don't ya do that? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Because Portage is beyond repair. The code and design are so bad that |
| 16 |
it's easier to start from scratch. Which, funnily enough, is what I |
| 17 |
ended up doing. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 22 |
Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org |
| 23 |
Web : http://ciaranm.org/ |
| 24 |
Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ |
Archives