Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@×××××××.org>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [soc] Python bindings for Paludis
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 21:13:29
Message-Id: 20070330220921.439d69b5@snowflake
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [soc] Python bindings for Paludis by Mike Frysinger
1 On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:51:54 -0400
2 Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote:
3 > On Friday 30 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
4 > > Gentoo's lack of progress is an extremely relevant issue...
5 >
6 > dont push your own agendas under the guise that Gentoo is lacking
7 > progress
9 Don't push your own agenda under the guise that it isn't.
11 > - you are not wanted as an official Gentoo developer ... the past
12 > clearly shows this
14 Not really... The process by which I became an unofficial Gentoo
15 developer was so flawed that it got replaced as a result...
17 > - the official package manager of Gentoo would need to be
18 > completely "in-house" with respect to control, direction, etc...
20 Justify that. What does being in-house have to do with having control?
21 Are you claiming that if the Council asks for a feature to be added to
22 Portage that it will be added, or that if the Council asks for a
23 feature to be added to Paludis that it wouldn't?
25 > - "in-house" would require every one who is control of the package
26 > manager to be a Gentoo developer
28 If that were true, you might want to consider the number of Gentoo
29 developers working on each of the three...
31 > - in order for you to gain again, we'd need either a
32 > complete flush of developer blood who would accept you or you to
33 > change yourself ... neither of which are realistic
35 You're assuming that the majority of developers had anything to do with
36 or cared remotely about any of that. But first and foremost, you missed
37 the part about me *wanting* to gain an address, which isn't
38 going to happen so long as the disadvantages outweigh whatever gain
39 it's supposed to give...
41 > so let's put this all together shall we:
42 > you are in full control of paludis, you will not be a Gentoo
43 > developer, thereforce paludis will not be the official Gentoo package
44 > manager
46 By that logic, Linux can't be the official Gentoo kernel and GCC can't
47 be the official Gentoo compiler, which is clearly silly.
49 > > No no, I'd be quite happy with any package manager that meets my
50 > > needs and the needs of other people. Portage is not such a package
51 > > manager, and, let's face it, never will be. The continuing
52 > > delusion that Portage will somehow magically improve and allow
53 > > Gentoo to keep up with other distributions is largely why Gentoo is
54 > > stuck where it is.
55 >
56 > there's a magic pill if i ever saw one ... the only available package
57 > managers at the moment that satisfy your requirements is paludis ...
58 > therefore see previous statements
60 *shrug* That's hardly my fault, is it?
62 > > As you also know fine well, those requirements
63 > > mean Gentoo will permanently be stuck with Portage (and when
64 > > dreaming up silly and biased requirements, bear in mind that
65 > > Portage was at one point close to being moved off Gentoo
66 > > infrastructure because of the huge delays in setting up svn...).
67 >
68 > again, wrong ... read what i said, my requirements would control
69 > selection of an official package manager and in fact are quite
70 > general and dont really come with restrictions as you seem to think
72 No, it just so happens that they deliberately exclude the only two
73 current viable alternatives to Portage, and experience suggests that
74 it's going to take a substantial amount of time for anyone to come
75 up with a third one...
77 > "emerge" is a brand name for Gentoo and while you can complain about
78 > lack of features all you want, dropping portage and installing a
79 > different package manager with a completely different interface will
80 > surely causes a huge pita for everyone
82 In the same way that "dselect" is a brand name for Debian?
84 --
85 Ciaran McCreesh


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] [soc] Python bindings for Paludis Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>