On 16 May 2010, at 15:03, erik quanstrom wrote:
portage is horrid. i hate it more every time i use it.
and it doesn't work. revdep rebuild is proof.
it's not clear to me that this is gentoo's fault. linux and
gnu together are one heck of a difficult place for
a distribution to live. but replicating portage would seem
to me to be a big mistake. not only does the plan 9
community lack the resources to maintain 30 different
versions of /bin/cp (or whatever), much less portage redux,
it will encourage gnu/linux habits, because that's what it's
built for.
we should build something that encourages a simplier
system, a system plan 9 people would really want.
- erik
Indeed, Gnu/Linux is almost unique as an operating system in suffering
from an inconsistent base system which, without going into detail, is
at the very least a huge abuse of everyone's time.
The problem I see here is like this:
1: A consistent base system is extremely desirable.
2: Some parts of the base system sometimes need to be replaced.
3: It is often desirable to be able to safely experiment with
replacement basesystem parts.
Point 2 raises the questions of which parts, and when. Perhaps upas
should be replaced with nupas in the official distribution.
Point 3 is the only one which suggests a package manager, but it
equally alternatively suggests using a filesystem with history, or
perhaps care on the sysadmin's part to archive all files which will be
replaced by the new installation. Automated solutions are of course
possible, but I don't think there is one which solves conflicts
between packages to everyone's satisfaction.
I haven't written half what I could have, but I'm in no mood for
writing, today.
--
Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- Alan Perlis
