| 1 |
On (17/12/07 11:29) Ralf Stephan wrote: |
| 2 |
> > What does everyone else think about this. Is portage a major blocker |
| 3 |
> > of progress or not so much? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> As said above, details are major blockers of progress. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> On the other hand, when I switched to paludis, 100 MB |
| 8 |
> of unnecessary packages suddenly were available to delete. |
| 9 |
> So, paludis must do something right where portage didn't. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> ralf |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> -- |
| 15 |
> gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
Hi, |
| 18 |
IMHO paludis has (could affort to have) a clear goal right from the start. |
| 19 |
It's devs has a long experience with pros&cons of portage/ebuilds. |
| 20 |
They (mainly) wrote PMS (portage package specification) on which to standartize some not so well established practicies (was devmanual). |
| 21 |
Beside that portage has been maintained by at least 4-5 very skilled people, butthis resulted in some messy/hackish code (quite unevitable i believe). |
| 22 |
Paludis was build (by it's authors) on portage experience, using a stable base and clear goals (all quite realistic to implement in relatively short time). |
| 23 |
But having a choice for a package manager is a *very good* thing to have. |
| 24 |
Just my point of view. |
| 25 |
Rumen |
Archives