On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:04:15 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Do you acknowledge that Portage is a severe limiting factor when it > > comes to improving the Gentoo user experience as a whole? > > what a lame question ... rather than waste time on this, why dont we > get to some relevant issues ...
Gentoo's lack of progress is an extremely relevant issue... > to start with, Paludis will never be an official package manager for > Gentoo so long as you are heavily involved. now that we've put a > bolt right between the eyes of that pink elephant, how about we > address some other things as well ... Ah, resorting to ad hominem. Is that the best you can manage? Is the best excuse you can provide to users for denying them the things they want and need "waah! ciaranm boogeyman!"? > since you're obviously going to complain about Gentoo's official > package manager so long as $pkgmgr != paludis without any intentions > of helping address limitations you raise (nor am i expecting you to), > why dont you do us all a favor and clamp it. constantly pointing out > that $pkgmgr sucks and $pkgmgr does not support xxx and $pkgmgr has > this limitation or that stupid design decision and that paludis is > the be all end all solution to our problems does not accomplish > anything ... it merely serves to piss us all off No no, I'd be quite happy with any package manager that meets my needs and the needs of other people. Portage is not such a package manager, and, let's face it, never will be. The continuing delusion that Portage will somehow magically improve and allow Gentoo to keep up with other distributions is largely why Gentoo is stuck where it is. > a good topic for the next council meeting i think would be to start > up a spec of requirements that a package manager must satisfy before > it'd be an official package manager for Gentoo ... off the top of my > head: > - the main developers need to be Gentoo developers > - source code hosted on Gentoo infrastructure > - compatible "emerge" and "ebuild" binaries As you know fine well, the Council has already rejected GLEP 49, which says more or less that. As you also know fine well, those requirements mean Gentoo will permanently be stuck with Portage (and when dreaming up silly and biased requirements, bear in mind that Portage was at one point close to being moved off Gentoo infrastructure because of the huge delays in setting up svn...). If you're looking for serious topics to discuss in this area, how about the following? "Is Portage severely limiting Gentoo's progress and future direction? What limits need to be removed in the next month, six months and year in order for Gentoo to get closer to its goal of providing 'near-ideal' tools and to regain its competitive edge? What steps can be taken to facilitate this?" -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
