Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Terje Kvernes <terjekv@××××××××.no>
To: Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-core@g.o, gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] FORK: The Time Is Now
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:22:54
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] FORK: The Time Is Now by Paul de Vrieze
1 Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> writes:
3 [ ... ]
5 > Personally I have only one issue that could be addressed. It
6 > concerns portage. There are many features that portage will
7 > implement someday and that have allready been identified.
9 I might have more issues than just portage, but portage is a big
10 one. I've made four separate attempts to "get into" portage and
11 produce some sane patches to the code, only to give up when trying
12 to make heads or tails of the code itself.
14 to be blunt, one thing Zynot and Zachary Welch has going for them is
15 the goal of rebuilding portage. I just they've learned. a clean,
16 modular codebase as well as interchangable front- and backends would
17 be a simple requirement.
19 > Many of those TODO's have been there a long time. While I know that
20 > it is necessary to keep portage stable, and I know that adding
21 > features is much work, I would like to know the status of those
22 > features.
24 if you've looked at the code there is a good reason why we're not
25 seeing a lot of developers jumping into portage.
27 > ps. As a suggestion, I understand that current portage might need a
28 > rewrite for parts. If it is not too straining a testing portage
29 > might be made to accommodate such a rewrite, while maintaining the
30 > current portage.
32 the current portage should be modularized and documented before
33 anything else is done to it. a test version would be a godsend, and
34 I for one would be more than happy to contribute and test that piece
35 of code.
37 --
38 Terje
40 --
41 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list