Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o>
To: gentoo-core@g.o
Cc: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] FORK: The Time Is Now
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:28:42
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] FORK: The Time Is Now by Seemant Kulleen
1 On Thursday 26 June 2003 14:28, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
2 > OK, here's what I am thinking about. While you respect that Daniel does
3 > not want to get into a mud slinging contest, you're asking him to. As far
4 > as an account of what happened, it really makes no difference -- it's a
5 > point of one's word against another's word.
6 >
7 > The crux however, is that you mentioned issues that were raised. I rather
8 > believe those issues are what should be addressed, rather than "he said
9 > this, but this is what happened" because the latter is futile, and this
10 > isn't Jerry Springer.
11 >
12 > So, let's get those issues which need addressing out into the open instead,
13 > shall we.
14 >
15 > This is going to -dev, but it's targetted mainly at the gentoo developers
16 > (no offense to anyone else, and your input is very much welcomed as well).
17 > This is my invitation. You can email the list or email me privately (so
18 > that there is confidentiality, if you're worried about that) and tell me
19 > your issues. While you're at it, tell me the 3 biggest things you'd like
20 > to see changed, and how.
21 >
22 > You say it's about transparency, I say, if you have a gripe, voice it so it
23 > can be seen. If it is not seen, it can not be addressed. As a member of
24 > the gentoo leadership, this is my invitation to you.
26 Personally I have only one issue that could be addressed. It concerns portage.
27 There are many features that portage will implement someday and that have
28 allready been identified. Many of those TODO's have been there a long time.
29 While I know that it is necessary to keep portage stable, and I know that
30 adding features is much work, I would like to know the status of those
31 features.
33 Paul
35 ps. As a suggestion, I understand that current portage might need a rewrite
36 for parts. If it is not too straining a testing portage might be made to
37 accommodate such a rewrite, while maintaining the current portage.
39 --
40 Paul de Vrieze
41 Researcher
42 Mail: pauldv@××××××.nl
43 Homepage:


Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] Portage features implementation Daniel Robbins <drobbins@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] FORK: The Time Is Now Terje Kvernes <terjekv@××××××××.no>