| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 22 May 2006 14:59:33 -0400 Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> | It should be pretty clear that one of the main problems is letting |
| 4 |
> | others decide which features we will and wont have and defining our |
| 5 |
> | standards based on their needs and not our own. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> So where are the use and slot deps? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
You will be tired of hearing this but backwards compat is a big issue. |
| 11 |
It is an issue that I think the portage team took into consideration far |
| 12 |
too much in the past, leading to this current situation. Most sane |
| 13 |
people realize that many of the features people want are not possible |
| 14 |
with the 2.X Portage codebase; except if the codebase is gutted. The |
| 15 |
Portage team didn't want to break backwards compatability a half dozen |
| 16 |
times, making people rewrite all the necessary tools in order to work |
| 17 |
with the new code. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Perhaps this was a mistake, perhaps the portage team should have done so |
| 20 |
in the past in order to push the required features. At this point I |
| 21 |
don't see portage going anywhere, if only because it has the same |
| 22 |
problems it always did. Too much spaghetti code, too much code |
| 23 |
dependency, bascailly requiring a rewrite of 6000+ lines of code just to |
| 24 |
make it "usable". |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
You make it seem like some easily solvable thing that anyone can do. |
| 27 |
You make it seem like the dep-resolver the portage team envisions is |
| 28 |
child's play to write. Frankly I don't see where these assertions come |
| 29 |
from. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Alec Warner |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives