Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: KDE 4.0.4 upgrade, sort of.

[Beso <givemesugarr@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2950 bytes --]

2008/5/31 Richard Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>:

> Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
>
>> So, in my opinion, you are just a pro-paludis troll.
>>
>> And from what I can see, trolls are the prefered audience and power behind
>> paludis.
>>
>
> Guys - let's try to keep this civil!
>
> There are lots of folks who use and like paludis who aren't trolls.  I'm
> among them.  The main thing I like is that the dependency management tends
> to work better than portage (or at least better than how portage used to
> work).  It also has better native support for overlays, and it is a bit more
> actively developed.  It also seems much faster to me - or at least it used
> to be (actually - I use portage so infrequently these days that it seems to
> take forever just to regenerate its various caches when I do use it -
> perhaps if I used emerge --sync that might behave differently).
>

that's exactly the point. as i've already said on new system portage is
quite flawly, while paludis is less flawly with deps. and the overlays
handling and the possibility to continue builds if packages fails on various
conditions is not a bad addition. if you emerge sync and update portage
repository you'll just need a paludis --regenerate-installable-cache and
you're ok. also you'll just have to remember to regenerate the installed
cache whenever you install something with portage.


> On the other hand, I do understand the attitude issues associated with some
> of the key developers and as pointed out in the FAQ quote it tends to show.
>  I'm not sure I'd actively evangelize for its use as a result.
>

sometimes they have somem technical points out there but have an impulsive
character. well, if they were in a development company they could have not
been scolded since their work as devs isn't bad.

The main thing I had feared with paludis is that at some point a need for a
> particular feature will come along and it will be determined that real men
> don't need that feature and I'll be stuck (while every other package manager
> out there ends up supporting it).  While this still concerns me it generally
> hasn't happened to date, and I'm less concerned about it.  However, if it
> does happen getting my keywords migrated back to portage format will end up
> being a minor headache...
>
> My recommendation is to look into paludis - and feel free to try it out.
>  Be aware of its advantages and limitations.  Then make the appropriate
> decision.  As Duncan pointed out it isn't an ideal package manager if you
> use binary packages frequently.


i could say that for users as duncan, with need of binpkg and with a minor
number of overlays paludis is not very good and in fact is indicated for
people who reboot oftenly (like ati notebooks users which don't have a
really good standby or suspend) and update world frequently and people who
have a big deal of repos usually more than 2 repos should be good to go with
paludis



-- 
dott. ing. beso

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3806 bytes --]