On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 19:35 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:04:15 -0400 > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > Do you acknowledge that Portage is a severe limiting factor when it > > > comes to improving the Gentoo user experience as a whole? > > > > what a lame question ... rather than waste time on this, why dont we > > get to some relevant issues ... > > Gentoo's lack of progress is an extremely relevant issue... > > > to start with, Paludis will never be an official package manager for > > Gentoo so long as you are heavily involved. now that we've put a > > bolt right between the eyes of that pink elephant, how about we > > address some other things as well ... > > Ah, resorting to ad hominem. Is that the best you can manage? Is the > best excuse you can provide to users for denying them the things they > want and need "waah! ciaranm boogeyman!"? > > > since you're obviously going to complain about Gentoo's official > > package manager so long as $pkgmgr != paludis without any intentions > > of helping address limitations you raise (nor am i expecting you to), > > why dont you do us all a favor and clamp it. constantly pointing out > > that $pkgmgr sucks and $pkgmgr does not support xxx and $pkgmgr has > > this limitation or that stupid design decision and that paludis is > > the be all end all solution to our problems does not accomplish > > anything ... it merely serves to piss us all off > > 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. > > > a good topic for the next council meeting i think would be to start > > up a spec of requirements that a package manager must satisfy before > > it'd be an official package manager for Gentoo ... off the top of my > > head: > > - the main developers need to be Gentoo developers > > - source code hosted on Gentoo infrastructure > > - compatible "emerge" and "ebuild" binaries > > As you know fine well, the Council has already rejected GLEP 49, which > says more or less that. As you also know fine well, those requirements > mean Gentoo will permanently be stuck with Portage (and when dreaming > up silly and biased requirements, bear in mind that Portage was at one > point close to being moved off Gentoo infrastructure because of the huge > delays in setting up svn...). > > If you're looking for serious topics to discuss in this area, how about > the following? > > "Is Portage severely limiting Gentoo's progress and future direction? > What limits need to be removed in the next month, six months and year > in order for Gentoo to get closer to its goal of providing 'near-ideal' > tools and to regain its competitive edge? What steps can be taken to > facilitate this?" >
It seems as on topic to say it here as anywhere else. I like Portage. I like it better than the Synaptic Package manager, yum, apt-get and especially rpm. I feel like it delivers more functionality than all of the package managers I just mentioned. It brought me to Gentoo. It drove me away when I got frustrated with it once. But then it brought me back again. I have used them all. Maybe I don't know the other package managers well enough. But what do I know? Larry -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
