Re: [gentoo-dev] portage-ng concurse entry Was: Updated Portage project page

[Nathaniel McCallum]

I totally agree with this (though I am not yet a dev).  From the 
installation perspective (I'm the GLIS guy), it makes a very small 
stage 1 tarball, which is great for net installations.  It also removes 
interpreter upgrade problems.  For instance, python 2.3 is already in 
most other distros as a stable package. Bindings for other languages 
also become really easy. C/C++, while not glamorous, is a workhorse.  
Hope I'm not being too much of a "freak".  Whatever language it gets 
done in, I support it fully.

my $0.02

Nathaniel
On Dec 5, 2003, at 10:47 AM, Luke-Jr wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Friday 05 December 2003 09:58 am, George Shapovalov wrote:
>> On the other hand I understand the desire to stay clear off the C/C++
>> use
>> and completely support it.
> Personally, I see C/C++ as an option that really should be considered
> not for
> being widely known, easy or readable, but because it would allow
> Portage to
> depend on *only* glibc, which could mean that there would only be 2
> critical
> packages that could break it and even then, staticly linking Portage
> could
> remove the glibc dependency (I think).
> Might it be a good idea to maintain a minimal Portage in C for recovery
> purposes even if portage-ng decides to go with another language?
> - --
> Luke-Jr
> Developer, Gentoo Linux
> http://www.gentoo.org/
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQE/0KiwZl/BHdU+lYMRAlf3AJ9xRwqgjEg6pxanwVqLa/sdMMvWsACgjd4D
> 6uqESnoda5xazl2fNY3gvog=
> =Tk4Q
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
>


--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list