On Mar 28, 2009, at 5:10 PM, Jeff Johnson wrote:
I'm saying that you were largely honking the same Newer! Better! Bestest!themes 5+ years ago.
Hurm. If that was your take-away from this, then I somehow *seriously* failed to make my point, both 5+ years ago and now. I am not asking, nor have I ever asked, for "Newer! Better! Bestest!" (assuming, of course, that I even know what you meant by that ;-). I'm asking for *minimum requirements* for mainstream success and that's all I'm asking for.
Now, perhaps MacPorts does not want to go mainstream, much less achieve mainstream success. I've voiced that particular theory more than once myself, and don't forget: I've watched MacPorts go from an Apple internal project, done by some fraction of an FTE spread across the 2-3 of us who worked on it sporadically on and off the clock, to an external, purely volunteer-driven project which looked for quite some time like it was simply going to hit the ground with a meaty thud and DIE, to a purely volunteer-driven project with some actual volunteers and a rather amazing resurrection, as Open Source projects go. Once OSS projects get seriously ill, they generally just die, they don't recover and go onto even greater success than they had at initial launch, so sure. I could easily see the MacPorts project saying, in some collective consciousness fashion: "Hey, we nearly died and came back to life! We have a lot more ports than we ever did before, a lot of them even work now, so hey, what the hell do you want, BLOOD? Go peddle your binary packages somewhere else! We're busy!" I can see a whole lot of justification for that point of view, which is why it's always with a sense of unease and mixed feelings that I even get into this whole, stupid packaging discussion from time to time. :-)
That said, should MacPorts ever DO decide to go from having thousands of users to having hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of users, I don't think I'm way out of line in suggesting that one reason will be because checklist items 1-4 were finally checked off by somebody. It CAN be done, Anders' tales of woe from previous MacPorts attempts in this area notwithstanding, with projects like Debian proving it every day (due to the innate superiority of their packaging tools, I suspect).
OK, that bit in parenthesis was just to piss Jeff off, I didn't really mean it. ;-)
And MacPorts still has none of the infrastructure that you've outlined, however reasonable your goals may be. The goals, in fact, are reasonable.
... and we could work backwards from this statement in search of any number of potential causes ("they don't care!", "they don't know how!", "they didn't use RPM 6!") but I'm not sure it would get us anywhere. :-) I suspect this is simply one of those "when its time comes, it will happen, and if its time *doesn't* come then, well, it won't" sorts of things.
And truly, my only quibble is with "completed", there's certainly huge differences between rpm and xpkg no matter how much you wish to lump them together.
Well, seeing as how xpkg does not, in fact, exist yet, except as ideas in various peoples heads, I'm not quite sure how you can compare it with *any* other system. They are only in common association through the term "package manager", and I don't think that anyone, least of all myself, was attempting to compare, say, xpkg's built-in flux- capacitor based time-travel features with RPM 6's adoption of Perl6 as an AI language which simply guesses what the user wants before they even install the package, thus pre-installing it and yielding the same results in a very different way.
- Jordan
_______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
