On Monday 22 May 2006 23:59, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 22 May 2006 17:47:37 -0400 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > | 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. > > Which is exactly my point. Being hosted on Gentoo infrastructure and > being written by Gentoo developers has nothing to do with whether or > not the features Gentoo needs are included.
Except that if things were really problematic, the council could have some developers go in to actually do the thing required. Even if it were against the wishes of the maintainers. I do not believe that the failure to implement the desired features is cause by the developers not wanting to implement them. It is caused mainly by their complexity and the awful state of the portage code. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgpCAvgP8c72P.pgp
Description: PGP signature
