On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:15:40 +0100 Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbh...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Ciaran McCreesh > <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 21:45:27 +0100 > > Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbh...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> It's a simple workaround for the lack of proper ebuild namespacing > >> on the basis of slots. > >> > >> So, till we have that, this works pretty well. :) > > > > Until you have that, or something else designed to do what you want, > > don't come up with some disgusting hack. > > So the PMS process should be a bottleneck to getting software out to > users? I think that's counter-productive.
There is no PMS bottleneck. There is a Portage bottleneck, and there is a "figuring out how to ensure new features don't interact badly with either old features or stupid hacks people have done". Abuse of the kind under discussion is a large contributor to both of those bottlenecks. > Our goal here is not to facilitate package manager development but to > package and distribute software to users. No, your goal is to provide a distribution. Gentoo has repeatedly shot itself in the foot, leg, groin etc by favouring short-term hacks over a well thought out, validated, self-enforcing design. Right now nearly all of the package manager work is on paying off previously incurred technical debt, and in the mean time you're busy adding to it. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
