| 1 |
Okay, it seems that I should have provided many more details. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Quixote is "A simple but powerful Web development framework for Python |
| 4 |
programmers". It's very low-level, but at the same time it's |
| 5 |
exceedingly sane. When I added quixote to portage it was just going |
| 6 |
through its 1.0 release. I'm still not entirely comfortable handling |
| 7 |
webapp-based ebuilds, but quixote itself is not too difficult to |
| 8 |
maintain by itself. In practice, though, people using quixote are |
| 9 |
likely to want to any of the following support packages that have sprung |
| 10 |
up over the last year or two: durus (object database), dulcinea |
| 11 |
(quixote/dulcinea helper modules), scgi (alternative to fast-cgi), |
| 12 |
and Sancho (Python unit-testing framework). Many of the packages have |
| 13 |
ebuilds in bugs, but to date nobody has been willing to maintain them. |
| 14 |
I'm not that interested in web applications myself, so I'm unwilling to |
| 15 |
invest the time necessary to make sure that Gentoo has a functional |
| 16 |
quixote + helpers framework. *Shrug* The result is that Gentoo's |
| 17 |
support for quixote is horribly inadequate. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
My view is that if a package is in the tree, then there's an implicit |
| 20 |
understanding that we're maintaining it. If we're not, then I really |
| 21 |
think it should go away. (Note, by the way, that this argument is |
| 22 |
completely unrelated to whether or not we should have |
| 23 |
upstream-unmaintained packages in the tree. As long as a Gentoo dev is |
| 24 |
willing to look after those packages when necessary, then I see no |
| 25 |
reason we shouldn't have those packages.) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-g2boojum- |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Grant Goodyear |
| 30 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 31 |
g2boojum@g.o |
| 32 |
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum |
| 33 |
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 |
Archives