On Friday 30 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Gentoo's lack of progress is an extremely relevant issue...
dont push your own agendas under the guise that Gentoo is lacking progress > > 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!"? not really, why dont you apply some of your logic: - you are not wanted as an official Gentoo developer ... the past clearly shows this - the official package manager of Gentoo would need to be completely "in-house" with respect to control, direction, etc... - "in-house" would require every one who is control of the package manager to be a Gentoo developer - in order for you to gain @gentoo.org again, we'd need either a complete flush of developer blood who would accept you or you to change yourself ... neither of which are realistic so let's put this all together shall we: you are in full control of paludis, you will not be a Gentoo developer, thereforce paludis will not be the official Gentoo package manager > 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. there's a magic pill if i ever saw one ... the only available package managers at the moment that satisfy your requirements is paludis ... therefore see previous statements > > 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. actually, no, GLEP 49 covers a ton more than what i'm proposing > 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...). again, wrong ... read what i said, my requirements would control selection of an official package manager and in fact are quite general and dont really come with restrictions as you seem to think "emerge" is a brand name for Gentoo and while you can complain about lack of features all you want, dropping portage and installing a different package manager with a completely different interface will surely causes a huge pita for everyone nowhere did i say the behavior of portage needs to be retained by a package manager ... i was suggesting that any official Gentoo package manager would have a way for users to continue with the general feel of things so that people can do `emerge foo` and know that the package "foo" would be installed. package managers are free to emulate this however they want and provide whatever other main binary they want. -mike
pgpCPg9OdWycp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
