1 |
On 30 Jun 2004, at 11:03, Adrian Gschwend wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:15:18 -0700, George Shapovalov wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> Well, what's going on is not that its "legally dead". It got its |
6 |
>> start and we |
7 |
>> threw a bunch of comments on the "design". However there does not |
8 |
>> seem to be |
9 |
>> much push behind it at the moment. I suspect there may be only one dev |
10 |
>> working on it (pvdabeel?), if at all. However there is clearly an |
11 |
>> effort to |
12 |
>> clean-up and enhance the [oroginal] portage under way. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> ok after all I care less about a portage-ng but about something I can |
15 |
> use on |
16 |
> non-Linux platforms :-) Is pvdabeel also reading this list? |
17 |
|
18 |
Yep, sorry. I was at WWDC, back now. |
19 |
|
20 |
Current portage uses some old algorithms, and features get continuously |
21 |
added. The portage team itself is working on cleaning up the code; |
22 |
There is jstubbs portage modularization efforts, last snapshot I looked |
23 |
at got all the global variables at the beginning of the file, ... |
24 |
Portage-ng comes in where old portage stops: revisiting the core |
25 |
algorithms. I am working on a new core that leads to better |
26 |
expressiveness, better performance and shorter, more intuitive, code. |
27 |
This obviously leads to better non-Linux support, but that is not the |
28 |
only reason for doing this. |
29 |
|
30 |
The reason I'm doing this alone atm, is because I'm doing this as a MCS |
31 |
thesis. |
32 |
|
33 |
Best regards, |
34 |
|
35 |
Pieter Van den Abeele |
36 |
|
37 |
> cu |
38 |
> |
39 |
> Adrian |
40 |
> |
41 |
> |
42 |
> |
43 |
> |
44 |
> -- |
45 |
> gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
46 |
> |
47 |
|
48 |
|
49 |
-- |
50 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |