On Friday 30 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > - 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...
sure, the first time ... the second time around, the state of the developer mass was simply too disrupted by your existence > > - 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? with the package manager in house, none of these things are an issue. we dont have to worry about external developers pulling crap like closing down a repository and thus denying other developers access. allowing the official package manager for Gentoo to be disrupted is not acceptable. > You're assuming that the majority of developers had anything to do with > or cared remotely about any of that. feel free to maintain whatever delusions you like > 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... then you agree it's not going to happen, good > > 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. not the same ... ignoring the fact that there are no real alternatives to these packages, "Gentoo" is not "Linux" nor is it "GCC" ... you can use it in conjunction with other kernels and toolchains > > > 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? it is your fault you wont shut it ... constantly complaining about the faults of other package mangers is not constructive when you dont indend to do anything about it except whine the projects into non-existence > 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... you're right, i'm going to go ahead and exclude the ability for anything to become the official powerhouse of Gentoo when it interferes so profoundly with anyone using Gentoo > > "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? you're confusing dselect with apt-get which is a well-known name aspect of Debian -mike
pgpSLXApor5da.pgp
Description: PGP signature
