Re: [gentoo-dev] [soc] Python bindings for Paludis

[Larry Lines]

On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 19:35 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:04:15 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > Do you acknowledge that Portage is a severe limiting factor when it
> > > comes to improving the Gentoo user experience as a whole?
> >
> > what a lame question ... rather than waste time on this, why dont we
> > get to some relevant issues ...
>
> Gentoo's lack of progress is an extremely relevant issue...
>
> > to start with, Paludis will never be an official package manager for
> > Gentoo so long as you are heavily involved.  now that we've put a
> > bolt right between the eyes of that pink elephant, how about we
> > address some other things as well ...
>
> Ah, resorting to ad hominem. Is that the best you can manage? Is the
> best excuse you can provide to users for denying them the things they
> want and need "waah! ciaranm boogeyman!"?
>
> > since you're obviously going to complain about Gentoo's official
> > package manager so long as $pkgmgr != paludis without any intentions
> > of helping address limitations you raise (nor am i expecting you to),
> > why dont you do us all a favor and clamp it.  constantly pointing out
> > that $pkgmgr sucks and $pkgmgr does not support xxx and $pkgmgr has
> > this limitation or that stupid design decision and that paludis is
> > the be all end all solution to our problems does not accomplish
> > anything ... it merely serves to piss us all off
>
> No no, I'd be quite happy with any package manager that meets my needs
> and the needs of other people. Portage is not such a package manager,
> and, let's face it, never will be. The continuing delusion that Portage
> will somehow magically improve and allow Gentoo to keep up with other
> distributions is largely why Gentoo is stuck where it is.
>
> > a good topic for the next council meeting i think would be to start
> > up a spec of requirements that a package manager must satisfy before
> > it'd be an official package manager for Gentoo ... off the top of my
> > head:
> >  - the main developers need to be Gentoo developers
> >  - source code hosted on Gentoo infrastructure
> >  - compatible "emerge" and "ebuild" binaries
>
> As you know fine well, the Council has already rejected GLEP 49, which
> says more or less that. As you also know fine well, those requirements
> mean Gentoo will permanently be stuck with Portage (and when dreaming
> up silly and biased requirements, bear in mind that Portage was at one
> point close to being moved off Gentoo infrastructure because of the huge
> delays in setting up svn...).
>
> If you're looking for serious topics to discuss in this area, how about
> the following?
>
> "Is Portage severely limiting Gentoo's progress and future direction?
> What limits need to be removed in the next month, six months and year
> in order for Gentoo to get closer to its goal of providing 'near-ideal'
> tools and to regain its competitive edge? What steps can be taken to
> facilitate this?"
>

It seems as on topic to say it here as anywhere else.  I like Portage.
I like it better than the Synaptic Package manager, yum, apt-get and
especially rpm.  I feel like it delivers more functionality than all of
the package managers I just mentioned.  It brought me to Gentoo.  It
drove me away when I got frustrated with it once.  But then it brought
me back again.  I have used them all.  Maybe I don't know the other
package managers well enough.  But what do I know?

Larry

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list