| 1 |
Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 27/01/2014 13:59, Tanstaafl wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> If the problem is really this potentially serious, why start from |
| 5 |
>> scratch, when Paludis is already very mature? Is it pure politics |
| 6 |
>> (someone just doesn't like Ciaran)? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> No-one likes to admit it, but I think there's some NIH going on |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I don't think this is the reason - one could probably do a fork. |
| 11 |
However, the approach taken by paludis is radically different |
| 12 |
(and often not to the better - or at least, this is very disputable). |
| 13 |
From the user perspective a change is not a good idea either: |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
The configuration is completely different, so more or less you have |
| 16 |
to start from scratch, and if you want to switch back you have to |
| 17 |
start from scratch again or update two setups in parallel |
| 18 |
(and test in parallel that your changes were OK). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Moreover, you risk stability of your system if you change, since there |
| 21 |
is no guarantee that the data written to /var/db/ is compatible: |
| 22 |
There were times when this format was rather extended by portage, |
| 23 |
so you could be missing some information after you switch back; |
| 24 |
I do not know what is the current state of compatibility here. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Unfortunately, many of these arguments could hold for pkgcore as well. |
| 27 |
At least, the compatibility of config and /var/db files is something |
| 28 |
which has to be seriously considered by everybody who plans to change |
| 29 |
on a production system. |
Archives