On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:39:17 +0700
C. Bergström <cbergstrom@pathscale.com> wrote:

> Drive-by trolling comment but I wish the effort to keep porkage alive
> would have instead been directed towards pkgcore.

If we still have users left by the time pkgcore is finished...

Moving the work efforts from one PM to another and expecting the future
to go well is too optimistic, of course it would make pkgcore a great
thing eventually but it can come at the cost of Gentoo itself; *danger*.

While Portage's performance might have dropped a little (though is still
quite fast [~30s] on --backtrack=0), the development on it didn't stop
as Arfrever and few_ have been committing over the past weeks to months;
there just hasn't been a release because the lead position was MIA...

And before anyone pulls a "pkgcore almost has EAPI 5 support" comment;
you should note that EAPI 6 is around the corner, and many of its
would-be features have already been implemented in Portage.

I'm in doubt if the same hold true for pkgcore; which was known to be
dead for a while as its founder left development, and it took some time
for two of our developers to pikc it up again.

So, yes, we need more people on pkgcore; no, we can't just leave
Portage behind, as it still is the beating heart of Gentoo for now.

Who knows, as we get up to speed, Portage might even see some neat
refactoring and performance improvements; or well, that's what I expect
to see some of us work towards to. We're already putting measures in
place to clean up the source code (short variable names, file length);
but for now, it's not that huge of a problem to stop using it at all.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D