| 1 |
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:12 PM, Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 03/07/2018 12:52 PM, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > I'm really not happy with the tone of this email, so I'm going to |
| 6 |
> > comment on it a bit. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Ok, it would have benefited from a do-I-sound-like-a-dick proofread. I |
| 10 |
> don't want to sound discouraging because this is an area with lots of |
| 11 |
> room for improvement. A better conclusion: |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Ultimately, people want to integrate the various PMs with portage |
| 14 |
> because portage is pretty good at keeping your system reliable, |
| 15 |
> up-to-date, and secure. The language-specific PMs on the other hand only |
| 16 |
> care about ease of use and how fast they can get bleeding-edge releases |
| 17 |
> to you. Having both would be ideal, but if we simply shell out to the |
| 18 |
> language-specific PM, then that would sidestep the good parts of portage |
| 19 |
> making the integration pointless. The time and attention involved in |
| 20 |
> ebuild packaging turn out to be critical parts of the product. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
I really appreciate this reply. I also think that portage provides a lot of |
| 24 |
value (particularly for complex projects that are perhaps not |
| 25 |
so well suited for use with the less featureful tooling.) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-A |
Archives