| 1 |
On Monday 28 June 2004 14:08, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 06/28/04 Adrian Gschwend wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Unfortunately I couldn't find much about it, so I decided to ask here |
| 4 |
> > about the status. How is portage-ng getting along? Is there a roadmap |
| 5 |
> > somewhere? What needs to be done? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> It's not getting along at all, we're concentrating our efforts on the |
| 8 |
> current portage. Right now I consider portage-ng a dead project. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Marius |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Nice to hear actually. I was more than a little skeptical about a rewrite of |
| 13 |
portage in a lower level language. Wont make portage any faster because of it |
| 14 |
using files rather than a database. And feature wise, python is flexible to |
| 15 |
add any of the features mentioned. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
-- |
| 18 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives