Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Kristian Benoit <kbenoit@×××××××.com>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Cc: Christopher Korn <chris@××××××.de>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Next major version
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 20:47:00
Message-Id: 1123879271.23755.80.camel@localhost
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Next major version by warnera6
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

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Next major version Marius Mauch <genone@g.o>