1 |
On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 14:48 -0400, warnera6 wrote: |
2 |
> Kristian Benoit wrote: |
3 |
> > On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 14:19 -0400, Alec Warner wrote: |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> >>Christopher Korn wrote: |
6 |
> >> |
7 |
> >> |
8 |
> >>>>>Hi Jason and other folks, |
9 |
> >>>>>I saw your last comment on |
10 |
> >>>>>http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73350 about most the these |
11 |
> >>>>>feature to be present in the next major version. That is really |
12 |
> >>>>>great to read. |
13 |
> >>>>> |
14 |
> >>>>>On that subject, I'd like to have an idea about when we should |
15 |
> >>>>>expect that next version. |
16 |
> >>>>> |
17 |
> >>>>>That said, I think it would be helpful to have a portage developper |
18 |
> >>>>>site. Perhaps there is and I dont know... |
19 |
> >>>>> |
20 |
> >>>>> |
21 |
> >>>> |
22 |
> >>>> That would require someone writing one, so if you are |
23 |
> >>>>volunteering ;) |
24 |
> >>>> |
25 |
> >>>> |
26 |
> >>> |
27 |
> >>> |
28 |
> >>>Writing is not the problem. But without (proper) information it is hard |
29 |
> >>>to write a documentation or something like this. |
30 |
> >>> |
31 |
> >>> |
32 |
> >>>Chris |
33 |
> >>> |
34 |
> >>> |
35 |
> >> |
36 |
> >>I had a wiki that attempted to cover portage-2.0 api documentation as |
37 |
> >>well as anything written for 2.1 but lost much of the work in a |
38 |
> >>transition from windows to linux ( I screwed up the SQl backups :) ). |
39 |
> >>I thought about putting something up on the devwiki but I haven't |
40 |
> >>proposed anything because no one really likes a wiki for API docs. |
41 |
> >> |
42 |
> >>As for API docs, there are none at present; and there are no plans for |
43 |
> >>any stable docs, IIRC. |
44 |
> >> |
45 |
> >>As for a developer website, what kinds of information are you looking for? |
46 |
> > |
47 |
> > |
48 |
> > Like you talked about, doc would be nice, Jason has some doc, api doc... |
49 |
> > here: |
50 |
> > http://dev.gentoo.org/~jstubbs/ |
51 |
> > but it does not look and is not official. |
52 |
> > |
53 |
> > I remember, when I started using Gentoo, reading that portage is a stand |
54 |
> > alone tool, it is not bind into Gentoo in anyway, someone could use it |
55 |
> > on redhat, debian, lfs... |
56 |
> > |
57 |
> > Back then I was using lfs so I thought portage could be the way to go on |
58 |
> > lfs, but I realized that Gentoo fit my needs and I did'nt have to |
59 |
> > compile everything by hand anymore and still have everything compiled by |
60 |
> > my machines :) OH JOY !!! |
61 |
> > |
62 |
> > But 5 years or so later, the only official place to get portage releases |
63 |
> > is still in the gentoo mirrors. There is no RSS feed or anything like |
64 |
> > that. I still believe that portage has the potential to be so powerful |
65 |
> > that redhat, debian, ... could be building their packages using portage, |
66 |
> > managing their own tree, having night build. |
67 |
> > |
68 |
> > The problem is see, is that the initial portage vision (or perhaps my |
69 |
> > initial vision, a vision I still have) has not been carried along with |
70 |
> > it's developpement. |
71 |
> "portage-ng", as it were? IMHO portage is a far cry from what is |
72 |
> needed for any kind of intense platform development. I'm not going to |
73 |
> harp on it's problems; everyone already knows what they are and we have |
74 |
> people who are dedicated to working on it. No one has seen the code |
75 |
> from portage-ng, so it was abandoned. The goals set for 2.1 and beyond |
76 |
> seem lofty, and integrating portage into a non-gentoo environment is |
77 |
> tricky at best, even with a nicely rewritten API. I don't see why other |
78 |
> distributions would turn to our tools when theirs work perfectly fine in |
79 |
> 90% of cases. However, if they end up benefitting, more power to them. |
80 |
> Thats why we are all here, is it not? |
81 |
|
82 |
Thanks a lot for pointing that out. |
83 |
I did a quick search about it, here are the results: |
84 |
|
85 |
The page is dated from the end of 2003. The pdf has not been updated |
86 |
since october 2003. According to google group, this is the 3rd time it |
87 |
is mentionned in a group/mailing list this year. Everytime it was |
88 |
someone saying: "you'll have to wait for portage-ng to get that". I |
89 |
guest drobbins is Daniel Robbins. He probably cant work on the project |
90 |
anymore. |
91 |
|
92 |
So his there anyone still working on portage-ng ? |
93 |
|
94 |
Kristian |
95 |
|
96 |
> > |
97 |
> > Having an official web site, doc, ... will help getting visibility and |
98 |
> > effort from the rest of the world thus we'll have better tools and |
99 |
> > eventually extend portage beyond Gentoo. |
100 |
> > |
101 |
> > Kristian |
102 |
> > |
103 |
> |
104 |
|
105 |
-- |
106 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |