First, let me point out, that there seems to be a deep language barrier between myself and 99% of you. I write in a foreign language and it doesn't only take a while, but also limits me in the way of how I can try to express or "bring over" my message.
> > Conary is way superior to IPS. > > > It is, however, of highest importance to us, to establish conary[0] as > SVR4-pkgadd's successor, rather than IPS which is clearly limited in > comparision to conary. > > tell us nothing about Conary, but certainly strive to build it up at the > expense of another project which is already sponsored by this community. > That's not appropriate, in my view. It wasn't planned, nor intended this way. I wanted to announce it much later, after having written a 1:1 comparison. But Shawn Walker's CG proposal forced me to act, as I have been quiet for two months, yet did do something I think would be good for the project. I'm not so much into writing fancy blogs, which seems to be a drawback. > You're welcome to like Conary, > work on it, propose a project for sponsorship, whatever, but you'll be > much more likely to get support from me if you actually sell me on what > Conary can do, not just make assertions of comparison to something else > without facts to support the assertions. I thought somebody would use google?? > Finally, this statement: > > > You have never compared IPS and conary, have you? > > Assuming that you and I would look at any piece of software and come to > the same conclusions is a classic error in discourse, and compounds your > difficulties in attempting to persuade me, because your statement above > is an arrogant way of telling me I'm not as smart as you Ahh, is this what you thought? This is ridiculous, as I DID NOT WRITE CONARY. I just figured out how to make it work on Solaris. Also, I don't think it is about intelligence: Conary is in development since 2004. It is being developed by some of the original authors of RPM. It is being developed for a much longer time, by many more people. Does it wonder it is much more versatile? IPS is a brilliant thing, and I DO TAKE MY HAT how quick you (or Dr. Hahn) were able to design and implement it. But you could have had an easier job if you just had adopted conary in the first place. But maybe you didn't like this idea due to licensing reasons? > (whether that > happens to be true or not, you're certainly not opening my mind to your > point of view). The attributes I value, and the requirements I bring to > the table, are likely quite different from yours. That's why your > statements are value judgments, not facts. > > For the record, I have looked at Conary. Compared to IPS, or any other > packaging system, it's different, to be sure. It has some interesting > attributes. It also has some things I don't value. > Dave For example? You also don't go into detail. Martin (p.s. I'm not online for approx. 30 hours, regards and till then)
