Re: [gentoo-dev] portage-ng concurse entry Was: Updated Portage project page

[Nathaniel McCallum]

I totally agree with this (though I am not yet a dev).  From the 
installation perspective (I'm the GLIS guy), it makes a very small 
stage 1 tarball, which is great for net installations.  It also removes 
interpreter upgrade problems.  For instance, python 2.3 is already in 
most other distros as a stable package. Bindings for other languages 
also become really easy. C/C++, while not glamorous, is a workhorse.  
Hope I'm not being too much of a "freak".  Whatever language it gets 
done in, I support it fully.

my $0.02

Nathaniel
On Dec 5, 2003, at 10:47 AM, Luke-Jr wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 05 December 2003 09:58 am, George Shapovalov wrote:
On the other hand I understand the desire to stay clear off the C/C++ 
use
and completely support it.
Personally, I see C/C++ as an option that really should be considered 
not for
being widely known, easy or readable, but because it would allow 
Portage to
depend on *only* glibc, which could mean that there would only be 2 
critical
packages that could break it and even then, staticly linking Portage 
could
remove the glibc dependency (I think).
Might it be a good idea to maintain a minimal Portage in C for recovery
purposes even if portage-ng decides to go with another language?
- --
Luke-Jr
Developer, Gentoo Linux
http://www.gentoo.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/0KiwZl/BHdU+lYMRAlf3AJ9xRwqgjEg6pxanwVqLa/sdMMvWsACgjd4D
6uqESnoda5xazl2fNY3gvog=
=Tk4Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list


--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list