| 1 |
On Tuesday 23 May 2006 10:00, Thilo Bangert wrote: |
| 2 |
> > However as a member of the existing portage team and also as a council |
| 3 |
> > member I would reject (and I would encourage[read work really hard at |
| 4 |
> > it] other council members to do the same) any GLEP which allowed or |
| 5 |
> > promoted the primary pkg mgt system being hosted offsite and maintained |
| 6 |
> > by non devs at the juncture in time. I joined our portage team because |
| 7 |
> > I realized that our pkg mgt is not a toy and can't be treated as such. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> but it's no holy grail either! |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> to be honest, it is my impression that the portage team is a blocker of |
| 12 |
> innovation here.... demanding some kind of monopoly on the package |
| 13 |
> manger. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> i would really like to come back to a discussion based on technical merit. |
| 16 |
> we constantly replace lesser solutions with better solutions - if/when |
| 17 |
> its time for portage to go, it _will_ go! |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I would suggest you to take a look at the portage code and try to do something |
| 20 |
as simple as split up the portage.py initialisation code into functional |
| 21 |
parts. The fact that this is almost impossible to do without risking serious |
| 22 |
instability shows the state of portage. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Also if you look at portage, it has been understood even before Daniel left, |
| 25 |
that portage needed to be rewritten from the ground up. I do not think there |
| 26 |
is anyone who wants to keep portage for portage's sake. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Otherwise. It is time for portage to go. Now we have to wait for a proper |
| 29 |
replacement with proven stability. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Paul |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 35 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 36 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 37 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives