| 1 |
On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 14:19 -0400, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> Christopher Korn wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> >>>Hi Jason and other folks, |
| 5 |
> >>>I saw your last comment on |
| 6 |
> >>>http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73350 about most the these |
| 7 |
> >>>feature to be present in the next major version. That is really |
| 8 |
> >>>great to read. |
| 9 |
> >>> |
| 10 |
> >>>On that subject, I'd like to have an idea about when we should |
| 11 |
> >>>expect that next version. |
| 12 |
> >>> |
| 13 |
> >>>That said, I think it would be helpful to have a portage developper |
| 14 |
> >>>site. Perhaps there is and I dont know... |
| 15 |
> >>> |
| 16 |
> >>> |
| 17 |
> >> That would require someone writing one, so if you are |
| 18 |
> >>volunteering ;) |
| 19 |
> >> |
| 20 |
> >> |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> >Writing is not the problem. But without (proper) information it is hard |
| 24 |
> >to write a documentation or something like this. |
| 25 |
> > |
| 26 |
> > |
| 27 |
> >Chris |
| 28 |
> > |
| 29 |
> > |
| 30 |
> I had a wiki that attempted to cover portage-2.0 api documentation as |
| 31 |
> well as anything written for 2.1 but lost much of the work in a |
| 32 |
> transition from windows to linux ( I screwed up the SQl backups :) ). |
| 33 |
> I thought about putting something up on the devwiki but I haven't |
| 34 |
> proposed anything because no one really likes a wiki for API docs. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> As for API docs, there are none at present; and there are no plans for |
| 37 |
> any stable docs, IIRC. |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> As for a developer website, what kinds of information are you looking for? |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Like you talked about, doc would be nice, Jason has some doc, api doc... |
| 42 |
here: |
| 43 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~jstubbs/ |
| 44 |
but it does not look and is not official. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
I remember, when I started using Gentoo, reading that portage is a stand |
| 47 |
alone tool, it is not bind into Gentoo in anyway, someone could use it |
| 48 |
on redhat, debian, lfs... |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Back then I was using lfs so I thought portage could be the way to go on |
| 51 |
lfs, but I realized that Gentoo fit my needs as I did'nt have to |
| 52 |
compile everything by hand anymore and still be able to choose compile time |
| 53 |
options :) OH JOY !!! |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
But 5 years or so later, the only official place to get portage releases |
| 56 |
is still in the gentoo mirrors. There is no RSS feed or anything like |
| 57 |
that. I still believe that portage has the potential to be so powerful |
| 58 |
that redhat, debian, ... could be building their packages using portage, |
| 59 |
managing their own tree, having night build... |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
The problem is see, is that the initial portage vision (or perhaps my |
| 62 |
vision of what was the original portage vision) has not yet been put |
| 63 |
into sight. |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
Having an official web site, doc, ... will help getting visibility and |
| 66 |
effort from the rest of the world and eventually extend portage beyond |
| 67 |
Gentoo. |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
Thus we need information about the status, timeline, milestone, |
| 70 |
developper info, contact, cvs/svn repository browsing, getting started, |
| 71 |
download section with releases and beta, bug report outside of Gentoo's |
| 72 |
bugzilla... |
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
Kristian |
| 75 |
|
| 76 |
-- |
| 77 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives