On Tuesday 23 May 2006 10:00, Thilo Bangert wrote: > > However as a member of the existing portage team and also as a council > > member I would reject (and I would encourage[read work really hard at > > it] other council members to do the same) any GLEP which allowed or > > promoted the primary pkg mgt system being hosted offsite and maintained > > by non devs at the juncture in time. I joined our portage team because > > I realized that our pkg mgt is not a toy and can't be treated as such. > > but it's no holy grail either! > > to be honest, it is my impression that the portage team is a blocker of > innovation here.... demanding some kind of monopoly on the package > manger. > > i would really like to come back to a discussion based on technical merit. > we constantly replace lesser solutions with better solutions - if/when > its time for portage to go, it _will_ go!
I would suggest you to take a look at the portage code and try to do something as simple as split up the portage.py initialisation code into functional parts. The fact that this is almost impossible to do without risking serious instability shows the state of portage. Also if you look at portage, it has been understood even before Daniel left, that portage needed to be rewritten from the ground up. I do not think there is anyone who wants to keep portage for portage's sake. Otherwise. It is time for portage to go. Now we have to wait for a proper replacement with proven stability. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgptBqE67GnxG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
