-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 01/27/2014 02:06 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 27/01/2014 13:59, Tanstaafl wrote: >> On 2014-01-26 1:04 PM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> So, not sure where your optimism comes from. But... some devs >>> are interested in starting from scratch or picking up pkgcore >>> (which would be the most sane thing to do IMO). >> >> ? >> >> If the problem is really this potentially serious, why start >> from scratch, when Paludis is already very mature? Is it pure >> politics (someone just doesn't like Ciaran)? >> >> >> > > > No-one likes to admit it, but I think there's some NIH going on >
If it's about performance (in the sense of speed), then paludis is worse, because dependency calculation is more complex/complete there. Debatable if that's really a problem, though. If it's about code quality... it's probably better, especially because it's not that old. But from a few looks at the code, it's not properly documented at class/method level (at least I could not find any comments). -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJS5mW2AAoJEFpvPKfnPDWzsTEH/jsxytMr2IQhNZcPdWhyNdu1 vCkiqV/kejjPtd9xDuRGMa6Adh3Jka1+I287J5ie61H+SU/4+mHYtkq9npohi9T8 YFgg8GsdrTfeC3o/d1qIBPHrKCAVs11D9IBYnFjNS4DkqM9chj8itnt7GTRWGZvx 0i5/nLQPq6fCW3nz9QzRfa6Mocx7m803ayWBpBSocr2xuIX8AsibG8YGTJzPLl64 IeZ31QPHJ5CqyIo5cidS2k4ZKnf0tEAJVoJUBWr412UHs+s2w1XaeyWPc1Faena7 L40VVjQp/jTjIz6GgMdbQrn/RGNe4rjxNQY2MuSezbqme8NDEtz1PnEZoQR1n9U= =L3AQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
