Kristian Benoit wrote:
On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 14:19 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
Christopher Korn wrote:
Hi Jason and other folks,
I saw your last comment on
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73350 about most the these
feature to be present in the next major version. That is really
great to read.
On that subject, I'd like to have an idea about when we should
expect that next version.
That said, I think it would be helpful to have a portage developper
site. Perhaps there is and I dont know...
That would require someone writing one, so if you are
volunteering ;)
Writing is not the problem. But without (proper) information it is hard
to write a documentation or something like this.
Chris
I had a wiki that attempted to cover portage-2.0 api documentation as
well as anything written for 2.1 but lost much of the work in a
transition from windows to linux ( I screwed up the SQl backups :) ).
I thought about putting something up on the devwiki but I haven't
proposed anything because no one really likes a wiki for API docs.
As for API docs, there are none at present; and there are no plans for
any stable docs, IIRC.
As for a developer website, what kinds of information are you looking for?
Like you talked about, doc would be nice, Jason has some doc, api doc...
here:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~jstubbs/
but it does not look and is not official.
I remember, when I started using Gentoo, reading that portage is a stand
alone tool, it is not bind into Gentoo in anyway, someone could use it
on redhat, debian, lfs...
Back then I was using lfs so I thought portage could be the way to go on
lfs, but I realized that Gentoo fit my needs and I did'nt have to
compile everything by hand anymore and still have everything compiled by
my machines :) OH JOY !!!
But 5 years or so later, the only official place to get portage releases
is still in the gentoo mirrors. There is no RSS feed or anything like
that. I still believe that portage has the potential to be so powerful
that redhat, debian, ... could be building their packages using portage,
managing their own tree, having night build.
The problem is see, is that the initial portage vision (or perhaps my
initial vision, a vision I still have) has not been carried along with
it's developpement.
"portage-ng", as it were? IMHO portage is a far cry from what is
needed for any kind of intense platform development. I'm not going to
harp on it's problems; everyone already knows what they are and we have
people who are dedicated to working on it. No one has seen the code
from portage-ng, so it was abandoned. The goals set for 2.1 and beyond
seem lofty, and integrating portage into a non-gentoo environment is
tricky at best, even with a nicely rewritten API. I don't see why other
distributions would turn to our tools when theirs work perfectly fine in
90% of cases. However, if they end up benefitting, more power to them.
Thats why we are all here, is it not?
Having an official web site, doc, ... will help getting visibility and
effort from the rest of the world thus we'll have better tools and
eventually extend portage beyond Gentoo.
Kristian
--
[email protected] mailing list
