On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:46:14 +0530 Anant Narayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 29-Mar-07, at 2:26 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 01:19:45 +0530 > > Anant Narayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I certainly don't think so. A lot of people *switch* to Gentoo > >> because of portage. Portage is a core part of our distro, and I > >> don't see it being replaced for a long time to come. > > > > Portage or the tree? Portage is just a way of using the tree, and > > it's not a very good one... > > Both portage and the tree. I don't deny the fact that portage isn't > the best way of using the tree but it's a lot better than many of > the package managers (think other distros) out there.
Better than many other package managers isn't exactly a glowing commendation. When you consider the disadvantages associated with a source-based distribution, Gentoo has to do a lot better than that in order to be worthwhile -- and it only takes one package manager to be better to make Gentoo not worth using. The goal should be "substantially better than any other package manager"... > In fact, I've hardly felt as if portage was "limiting" me in any way > for the past 2 years or so. It just works, and that's a good thing > (TM). Have a look at [1] and all the open "Portage should..." bugs. Would any of those improve the user experience for you? Can you think of other features of a similar nature that would make your life easier? That Portage works does not mean that it is anywhere near ideal... A few years ago Gentoo had some serious advantages over the competition. These days, Gentoo is at serious risk of being Red Queened by Ubuntu and Fedora. Providing the same thing that was provided two years ago isn't enough. If Portage can't deliver functionality that makes Gentoo competitive with where Ubuntu will be a year from now, Portage has to be replaced. [1]: http://ciaranm.org/show_post/95 -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
