Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 22 May 2006 14:59:33 -0400 Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | It should be pretty clear that one of the main problems is letting > | others decide which features we will and wont have and defining our > | standards based on their needs and not our own. > > So where are the use and slot deps? >
You will be tired of hearing this but backwards compat is a big issue. It is an issue that I think the portage team took into consideration far too much in the past, leading to this current situation. Most sane people realize that many of the features people want are not possible with the 2.X Portage codebase; except if the codebase is gutted. The Portage team didn't want to break backwards compatability a half dozen times, making people rewrite all the necessary tools in order to work with the new code. Perhaps this was a mistake, perhaps the portage team should have done so in the past in order to push the required features. At this point I don't see portage going anywhere, if only because it has the same problems it always did. Too much spaghetti code, too much code dependency, bascailly requiring a rewrite of 6000+ lines of code just to make it "usable". You make it seem like some easily solvable thing that anyone can do. You make it seem like the dep-resolver the portage team envisions is child's play to write. Frankly I don't see where these assertions come from. Alec Warner -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
