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

[Duncan]

Mike Auty <ikelos@g.o> posted 46103599.9050408@g.o,
excerpted below, on  Sun, 01 Apr 2007 23:43:37 +0100:

Snipped a lot of well stated opinion...

> So now the question is, are we willing to accept the cons for the pros,
> or do we need to find a different solution.  If not, then other package
> managers should invest their time in ratifying a specification quickly,
> so that they can get down to coding to the specification.  Also, those
> against a new manager, should get down to agreeing the specification so
> that managers with the possibility of fracturing are bound within a
> framework of acceptability.  As I see it, that leaves both sides working
> towards the same direction, and should give impetus to both groups to
> come to a common point as fast as possible.

> If not, then probably we should return to the drawing board, but I
> concur that bickering and worrying about the future without pinpointing
> the problem and trying to tackle it, is far more futile than working
> towards a viable solution...

I think you said it better than I did.  =8^) 

Taking a bit of a bent, here... Of course, from the (amd64) user side, 
the single missing feature I think of most often is missing full multi-
arch, not for me personally as I do source only, but there are a lot of 
folks that would certainly not miss having to do the chroot thing to get 
the full usual benefits of Gentoo -- the pre-compiled emul- packages are 
nice and definitely serve a purpose, but just aren't the same.  Do either 
of the alternatives deal with that?

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list