Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
So, in my opinion, you are just a pro-paludis troll.
And from what I can see, trolls are the prefered audience and power behind
paludis.
Guys - let's try to keep this civil!
There are lots of folks who use and like paludis who aren't trolls. I'm
among them. The main thing I like is that the dependency management
tends to work better than portage (or at least better than how portage
used to work). It also has better native support for overlays, and it
is a bit more actively developed. It also seems much faster to me - or
at least it used to be (actually - I use portage so infrequently these
days that it seems to take forever just to regenerate its various caches
when I do use it - perhaps if I used emerge --sync that might behave
differently).
On the other hand, I do understand the attitude issues associated with
some of the key developers and as pointed out in the FAQ quote it tends
to show. I'm not sure I'd actively evangelize for its use as a result.
The main thing I had feared with paludis is that at some point a need
for a particular feature will come along and it will be determined that
real men don't need that feature and I'll be stuck (while every other
package manager out there ends up supporting it). While this still
concerns me it generally hasn't happened to date, and I'm less concerned
about it. However, if it does happen getting my keywords migrated back
to portage format will end up being a minor headache...
My recommendation is to look into paludis - and feel free to try it out.
Be aware of its advantages and limitations. Then make the appropriate
decision. As Duncan pointed out it isn't an ideal package manager if
you use binary packages frequently.
--
[email protected] mailing list
