From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25132 invoked by uid 1002); 5 Dec 2003 10:53:42 -0600 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-portage-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail Reply-To: gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 11778 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2003 10:53:41 -0600 From: Daniel Robbins To: George Shapovalov Cc: gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org, gentoo-dev@gentoo.org, dholm@gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <200312050158.17479.george@gentoo.org> References: <200312050158.17479.george@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-cjyCm1P1pcVNcAETrPAD" Organization: Gentoo Technologies, Inc. Message-Id: <1070643286.6073.173.camel@ht.gentoo.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:54:46 -0700 Subject: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-ng design competition -- not yet X-Archives-Salt: 5a292e5b-ddcc-49e3-973b-70dd7b8f5d37 X-Archives-Hash: 883d32230f46fef49200d78aa837ae65 --=-cjyCm1P1pcVNcAETrPAD Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 02:58, George Shapovalov wrote: > On Wednesday 03 December 2003 15:08, Daniel Robbins wrote: > > I haven't looked at twisted, but a good solution suggested by nerdboy i= s > > to have a design competition once we have the requirements finalized. >=20 > So, we are going to do it according to "accepted practices" :). > Seriously, I am glad to see it! And here is my entry ;). Everyone, please note above that I said "have a design competition *once we have the requirements finalized*." This hasn't happened yet. Please focus on the capabilities you want in Portage first. Tell us about these. These need to be documented first. Any design competition will not begin until it is officially announced and until we have a set of requirements for any submitted design to be judged by. We need to clearly determine what we are shooting for before we choose a language to get us there. That being said, ADA is something I'd be comfortable with if the proposed implementation can meet our requirements, and will be seriously considered, and we will post george's proposal for ADA to the portage-ng pages in the proper time (again, when he has the opportunity to see a complete set of requirements for submissions, and explain how his implementation would meet those requirements.)=20 But please, we have not decided on prolog, there is no need to pre-emptively bash it (no pun intended.) Focus on submitting requests for what you want portage-ng to be able to *do*, not what language you think it should be coded in. Look at it this way (this is something nerdboy explained to me) -- if we have a solid set of requirements, we could have those requirements implemented in *any* language, and as long as our requirements are met fully, we would be happy with the outcome. That is what we want our requirements to do for us, and why they are so important. I don't want to add any "rigged" requirements that are designed to steer us towards prolog, C, C++, python, ADA or anything else. Let's just document clearly what we need and what we expect portage-ng to be able to do, and the rest will be sorted out later. If portability is important, put that in the requirements. Performance? Put it in the requirements. etc etc. Choice of a particular language over another will not guarantee that the resultant software will meet our needs. Having something documented in the requirements will. Regards, Daniel --=-cjyCm1P1pcVNcAETrPAD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA/0LhWffezrJ9WV/IRAsh5AJ9DJw9WBzxBeyPzEf6A9P2CSibEiwCfVgUh 2r2Yy+oso97hJ6dargzXtVM= =fGmt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-cjyCm1P1pcVNcAETrPAD--