On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 18:40 +0100, Jakob Buchgraber wrote: > > > So why don't you start rewriting, refactoring and improving the portage > source? It definitely doesn't make sense to create a competing package > management system.
How is this useful, honestly? Ciaran's exercising his strengths: the paludis team have been taking a long hard look at portage, what it does, and what it should do, and making a spec/requirements doc out of it, and then coding to that. Portage itself is a bit of a frankenstein (an evolved proof of concept, if you will) -- its evolution hasn't really been "designed." The portage developers have, over the years, done their best to try and refactor and improve the source. But let's be honest, starting from scratch given the requirements up front is a *very* valid approach. I think Ciaran should be applauded on paludis. Thanks, Seemant
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
