Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: hasufell <hasufell@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-08-12
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 13:03:40
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-08-12 by Rich Freeman
1 Rich Freeman:
2 >>
3 >> Tree policy, I'm afraid, has to adapt to Portage; not the other way
4 >> around.
5 >
6 > The reality is that both portage and the tree policy need to adapt to
7 > the needs of the community, otherwise there won't be anybody around
8 > maintaining either.
10 Rich, we are almost at the point where portage is unmaintained. Can't
11 say I feel sorry about that. I'd rather hack on paludis than portage
12 (although it isn't exactly well documented and would probably take me 2+
13 months just to understand some basics).
15 Anyway, I don't think the recent reactions help in any way to boost
16 portage development. People should really think about this and how this
17 is perceived by the remaining portage devs. If you guys want to actually
18 help portage, you should come up with code fixes that reduce the number
19 of rebuilds instead of voting on unimplemented solutions (which I think
20 is highly contradictory).