On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:51:54 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
Don't push your own agenda under the guise that it isn't. > - you are not wanted as an official Gentoo developer ... the past > clearly shows this Not really... The process by which I became an unofficial Gentoo developer was so flawed that it got replaced as a result... > - the official package manager of Gentoo would need to be > completely "in-house" with respect to control, direction, etc... Justify that. What does being in-house have to do with having control? Are you claiming that if the Council asks for a feature to be added to Portage that it will be added, or that if the Council asks for a feature to be added to Paludis that it wouldn't? > - "in-house" would require every one who is control of the package > manager to be a Gentoo developer If that were true, you might want to consider the number of Gentoo developers working on each of the three... > - 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 You're assuming that the majority of developers had anything to do with or cared remotely about any of that. But first and foremost, you missed the part about me *wanting* to gain an @gentoo.org address, which isn't going to happen so long as the disadvantages outweigh whatever gain it's supposed to give... > 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 By that logic, Linux can't be the official Gentoo kernel and GCC can't be the official Gentoo compiler, which is clearly silly. > > 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 *shrug* That's hardly my fault, is it? > > 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 No, it just so happens that they deliberately exclude the only two current viable alternatives to Portage, and experience suggests that it's going to take a substantial amount of time for anyone to come up with a third one... > "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 In the same way that "dselect" is a brand name for Debian? -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
