| 1 |
On Monday 17 December 2007 16:14:24 Raphael wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hey, I made someone laugh today. Good deed of the day: check! :P |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
:) |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> I was unaware of Paludis. Re-reading the thread now, I saw that |
| 7 |
> someone mentioned it. After googling for it, seems a lot of people are |
| 8 |
> fond of it. Why is it not the default package manager yet? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
It's not my decision so I'm not going to answer this. I can, however, say that |
| 11 |
Paludis still lacks a couple of features that Portage has (most notably |
| 12 |
binary package support and pkg/slot-move support). |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> As for the second part, yes, using a database wouldn't get rid of the |
| 15 |
> I/O problem, but could diminish it, since database data isn't spread |
| 16 |
> across several directories and files. And I'm not proposing to store |
| 17 |
> the entire ebuild within, but a representation of it that could be |
| 18 |
> easily queried. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Which would add an awful lot of complexity and require major design changes in |
| 21 |
order to gain anything. The beauty of the ebuild format is its simplicity. I |
| 22 |
don't really think it's worth it. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Bo Andresen |
Archives