Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I think you're massively underestimating the requirements of the
average user, what with the tree as complex as it is these days. Most
users now:
* Have to use external repositories
* Have to handle at least some keywording overrides themselves
* Have to have some way of m
darren kirby wrote:
>
>
> Exactly. LSBs insistence on using RPM as the "One True Package Manager" seems
> incredibly daft to me. It was RPM-hell that steered me towards Gentoo all
> those years ago in the first place. I cannot put into words how much I loathe
> RPM.
>
> Seems to me if Gentoo who
On Friday 16 March 2007 18:58, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > That's not entirely true. The main trouble with refactoring portage code
> > is that there is no defined public API and so even the littlest changes
> > are likely to break things in gentoolkit and several of the portage g
Jason Stubbs wrote:
> That's not entirely true. The main trouble with refactoring portage code is
> that there is no defined public API and so even the littlest changes are
> likely to break things in gentoolkit and several of the portage gui front end
> packages.
What about branching, doing t
Jakob Buchgraber wrote:
>
> Why don't you join the portage team and try to persuade the current
> portage devs and help to implement the "killer features"?
The main problem with such projects is that you cannot do some stuff in
an easy way, that's the reason you have from scratch rewrite of 2.0
c
On Friday 16 March 2007 02:47, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:40:05 +0100 Jakob Buchgraber
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So why don't you start rewriting, refactoring and improving the
> > portage source? It definitely doesn't make sense to create a
> > competing package manag
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:40:05 +0100
Jakob Buchgraber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So why don't you start rewriting, refactoring and improving the
portage source? It definitely doesn't make sense to create a
competing package management system.
"Patches welcome", I t
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:40:05 +0100
Jakob Buchgraber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So why don't you start rewriting, refactoring and improving the
> portage source? It definitely doesn't make sense to create a
> competing package management system.
"Patches welcome", I think is the appropriate resp
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:40:05 +0100 Jakob Buchgraber
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So why don't you start rewriting, refactoring and improving the
> portage source? It definitely doesn't make sense to create a
> competing package management system.
Because it's far simpler to start from scratch. Ref
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:40:05 +0100
Jakob Buchgraber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So why don't you start rewriting, refactoring and improving the
> portage source? It definitely doesn't make sense to create a
> competing package management system.
I think you underestimate just how much rewriting
On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 18:40 +0100, Jakob Buchgraber wrote:
> >
> So why don't you start rewriting, refactoring and improving the portage
> source? It definitely doesn't make sense to create a competing package
> management system.
How is this useful, honestly? Ciaran's exercising his streng
On Thursday 15 March 2007 14:46:46 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Why are those responsible for the forums unwilling to accept any
> feedback or criticism, instead attacking the attacker or accusing the
> attacker of merely being one of my pawns? Or, when it happens on the
> forums, making unspecific vag
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:33:12 -0300 Mauricio Lima Pilla
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 15 March 2007 14:15:05 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Which, even if it were true, is besides the point if doing so
> > prevents any development from getting done. And just how much
> > development gets done
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:30:36 +0100 Jakob Buchgraber
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You're avoiding my point. The improvements that are being made
are, by and large, insignificant. Portage doesn't need a few
little tweaks now and again. It has to start delivering a whole
loa
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:30:36 +0100 Jakob Buchgraber
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> You're avoiding my point. The improvements that are being made
> >> are, by and large, insignificant. Portage doesn't need a few
> >> little tweaks now and again. It has to start delivering a whole
> >> load of majo
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:31:08 + George Prowse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > I think you're massively underestimating the requirements of the
> > average user, what with the tree as complex as it is these days.
> > Most users now:
> >
> > * Have to use external repositories
> > * Have to handle
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:11:49 + George Prowse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
If you think that that's all a package manager should do, you have a
serious lack of imagination. Most users need or would heavily
benefit from far more. See http://ciaranm.org/show_post/95 for
Hey!
You're avoiding my point. The improvements that are being made are, by
and large, insignificant. Portage doesn't need a few little tweaks now
and again. It has to start delivering a whole load of major new
features (there's no one killer feature), and quickly.
Why don't you join the porta
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 01:36:19 +1100 Jonathan Adamczewski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Also, mandate that there be a link to upstream changelogs (or a
> summary thereof) in a packages changelog in portage. Help users make
> informed decisions about upgrades. Some devs already do this e.g.
> joshua
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:11:49 + George Prowse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > If you think that that's all a package manager should do, you have a
> > serious lack of imagination. Most users need or would heavily
> > benefit from far more. See http://ciaranm.org/show_post/95 for some
> > modest i
George Prowse wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:19:52 + George Prowse
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What on earth is going to be a "major visible improvement" to a
command line based package manager that any average Gentoo user is
going to realise? The average user probabl
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:19:52 + George Prowse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
What on earth is going to be a "major visible improvement" to a
command line based package manager that any average Gentoo user is
going to realise? The average user probably only uses a few com
Caleb Cushing wrote:
What on earth is going to be a "major visible improvement" to a
command
line based package manager that any average Gentoo user is going to
realise? The average user probably only uses a few commands: emerge
-u/p/a/v/--sync/package/world/system and then u
* The repeated abuse of silly phrases like "Gentoo is about choice",
"Gentoo is about the community" and "Gentoo should be about fun" to
attempt to rationalise insane policy decisions. Choice, community and
fun are all very well, but without a quality distribution they're
worthless. The primary
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:49:39 +0100 Wernfried Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 09:58:50PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > * The wrong idea of what the user base is, and what the target
> > > > user base is. Gentoo's direction is too heavily influenced by a
> > > > smal
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:33:54 -0400 "Dan Meltzer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Paludis had nothing to do with that. It was a Portage change that
> > required the update.
>
> hansmi's log was from 1-06-2007. The change in portage was added
> 1-23-07. This was before the discussion and portage fi
Wernfried Haas napsal(a):
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 09:58:50PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> Sunrise is the canonical example. Also consider the way the forums are
>> being run (like it or not, the forums are taken by many to be
>> representative of Gentoo's user base)...
>
> Drop your theories
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 09:58:50PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > * The wrong idea of what the user base is, and what the target user
> > > base is. Gentoo's direction is too heavily influenced by a small
> > > number of extremely noisy ricer forum users, many of whom don't
> > > even run Gent
On 3/14/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 03:45:01 +0100 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > QA is supposed to avoid fixing other people's code where things are
> > actively maintained.
>
> I usually ask before messing with other's
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 03:45:01 +0100 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > QA is supposed to avoid fixing other people's code where things are
> > actively maintained.
>
> I usually ask before messing with other's stuff but if I find
> something wrong I rather fix it m
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> QA is supposed to avoid fixing other people's code where things are
> actively maintained.
I usually ask before messing with other's stuff but if I find something
wrong I rather fix it myself while I'm at it (and I'm quite happy if
people does the same for my stuff).
in t
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:19:52 + George Prowse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> What on earth is going to be a "major visible improvement" to a
> command line based package manager that any average Gentoo user is
> going to realise? The average user probably only uses a few commands:
> emerge -u/p/a/
What on earth is going to be a "major visible improvement" to a command
line based package manager that any average Gentoo user is going to
realise? The average user probably only uses a few commands: emerge
-u/p/a/v/--sync/package/world/system and then use
package.keywords/mask/unmask so there ar
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
That's just it. Portage needs to deliver major visible improvements at
the user level for Gentoo to get anywhere. Managing a Gentoo system is
much harder now than it was a few years ago, but the tools are largely
the same.
What on earth is going to be a "major visible im
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:20:37 +0100 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:22:55 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> I cannot agree on the Genstef-thingy, nor can I proof you wrong,
> >> but I'd be please if in general such things could be done
>
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:22:55 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I cannot agree on the Genstef-thingy, nor can I proof you wrong, but
>> I'd be please if in general such things could be done anonymous as it
>> is in some way FUD and might fuel flames...userrel and userreps ar
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:41:10 -0700 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Portage is being incrementally improved. I'm not trying to rag on the
> former or the current portage crew; certainly it moves slowly. Much
> of it needs rewriting; my preference is to have more tests so that
> when stuff
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> All that we'd find out is the kind of user that actively follows
> requests for information and responds to them. Gentoo currently doesn't
> have a way of interacting with all the other users out there...
Of course you would only find out about the user that responds to the
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:22:55 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I cannot agree on the Genstef-thingy, nor can I proof you wrong, but
> I'd be please if in general such things could be done anonymous as it
> is in some way FUD and might fuel flames...userrel and userreps are
> there to be talked to ab
Hello Alec
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 02:41:10PM -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
> > 11:16:24 <@genstef> hansmi: bah fix your qa stuff yourself if you think
> > I am wrong. I wont do something I dont agree with
> I would like to also point out that your quoted irc snippet is very weak
> as there is no exp
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I cannot agree on the Genstef-thingy, nor can I proof you wrong, but I'd be
please if in general such things could be done anonymous as it is in some way
FUD and might fuel flames...userrel and userreps are there to be talked to
about such things.
> * The wrong idea of w
quoth the Albert Hopkins:
> [Comment about Gentoo's non-participation in LSB]
>
> While I somewhat agree, I think Gentoo's main selling point (at least
> for me) is that is the way it stands out from your typical Linux distro.
> It's source-based package system was once what distinguished it from
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> * Portage. Gentoo hasn't delivered anything useful or cool for two
> years or so. Things like layman are merely workarounds for severe
> Portage limitations (not a criticism of layman). Delivery to end users
> is based around what's possible with Portage, not what people
[Oh no! How did I let myself get sucked into a gentoo-dev thread? ;-)]
On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 13:31 -0700, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
[...]
> I'll just throw out a couple of my own comments:
>
[ I'm skipping the first one because it doesn't interest me]
[Comment about Gentoo's non-participati
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:31:57 -0700 "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. As far as I'm concerned, the one thing that absolutely positively
> should have happened now but hasn't is some scheme where you have
> something like Red Hat/Fedora's "green checkmark/red bang" indicator
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 21:31, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> 1. As far as I'm concerned, the one thing that absolutely positively
> should have happened now but hasn't is some scheme where you have
> something like Red Hat/Fedora's "green checkmark/red bang" indicator on
> your desk, indicatin
On 14/03/07, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:30:37 +0100 Alexandre Buisse
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I quite agree with the Patriot act comparison, and I would be
>> interested to know what you think our real problems are.
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:30:37 +0100 Alexandre Buisse
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I quite agree with the Patriot act comparison, and I would be
interested to know what you think our real problems are.
Not a complete list, but probably a good starting point:
* Porta
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:30:37 +0100 Alexandre Buisse
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I quite agree with the Patriot act comparison, and I would be
> interested to know what you think our real problems are.
Not a complete list, but probably a good starting point:
* Portage. Gentoo hasn't delivered any
49 matches
Mail list logo
