From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KmvG5-0006WD-PW for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:56:42 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 216A7E02CB; Mon, 6 Oct 2008 18:56:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from snowy.fizzelpark.com (snowy.fizzelpark.com [85.25.140.198]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B01FBE02CB for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2008 18:56:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 10914 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2008 18:56:37 -0000 Received: from 79.142.224.149 ([79.142.224.149]) by mail.fizzelpark.com ([85.25.252.58]) with ESMTP via SSL; 06 Oct 2008 18:56:37 -0000 From: Thilo Bangert Organization: Gentoo To: gentoo-scm@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-scm] Re: Welcome to Gentoo-SCM discussion, for figuring out Gentoo beyond CVS Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 20:54:14 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <200810052359.49834.bangert@gentoo.org> <200810061911.03213.rbu@gentoo.org> <20081006182933.702ee17b@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <20081006182933.702ee17b@googlemail.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo SCM discussions X-BeenThere: gentoo-scm@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-scm@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2706096.CAGmvaievo"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200810062054.17180.bangert@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 702b2ed3-3560-46c9-9071-b07880cb6660 X-Archives-Hash: 49dc37fb34a3b44cb3ebf71399c098b7 --nextPart2706096.CAGmvaievo Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Ciaran McCreesh said: > On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 19:10:58 +0200 > > Robert Buchholz wrote: > > > > our current VCS is inhibiting development and innovation. our > > > > repo layout is not! > > > > > > I would say it is (exherbo is a half-decent example of something I > > > think is better). > > > > What problems are we trying to solve? > > Why is the exherbo approach better? > > The Exherbo approach relies upon the package manager being good at > dealing with larger numbers of interdependent repositories. Unless > you've got a way of making Portage support things like repository deps, > unavailable-format repositories [1] and multiple repositories with > multiple dependencies, switching is going to make things pretty much > unusable for anyone using Portage... which is a perfect example for why the repo layout discussion should not=20 be dragged into this. lets switch to something better now (a better VCS)=20 and then to something even better (a nicer repo layout) afterwards. if we=20 take up the repo layout discussion we will be going nowhere... yes - i want pink ponies too. but for now, i'll settle for purple ones... > [1]: > http://ciaranm.wordpress.com/2008/06/12/dealing-with-lots-of-repositori >es/ --nextPart2706096.CAGmvaievo Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkjqXtkACgkQxRElEoA5Ancs8gCgtTLv8IS4DAB0hXe0jgROzb9Q MlwAoKLf6Ew+fWtHvY0W+J4Il2R2flcv =hRIS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2706096.CAGmvaievo--