| 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. |
| 9 |
|
| 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). |
| 14 |
|
| 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). |
Archives