[csw-maintainers] Status of the suggestions

[Trygve Laugstøl]

Peter Bonivart wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Trygve Laugstøl <trygvis at opencsw.org> wrote:
>> To be honest I don't see why we need two tools that does the same job.
>> It will only be confuing to users as they won't know which tool to know,
>> in particular if they have the same set of features.
> 
> Same basic features maybe but pkgutil already has more advanced
> features and a lot more is coming. Lots of people choose to install
> apt/yum on rpm systems even if you can argue that they do the same job
> as what was on the system in the first place. Choice is good.

As a project I don't think choice is necessarily a good thing if it
increases the burden on us as a team as we would have to support two
tools which can (and most likely will) fail in different ways.

Having all tool available in the catalog is to me obviously a good thing.

Do not take this personal or as critique of pkgutil or pkg-get. It is
too bad that you couldn't work together on the same code base. Choice is
good in the way that you took the ideas of pkg-get and added more,
useful features. pkg-get has caught up (at least to a certain extent, I
haven't checked out the new features of either tool), good for that tool.

>> As it is now pkgutil can't replace pkg-get (try running pkgutil update
>> on a box with more than one outdated dependency). When pkgutil is
>> generally useful in *all* cases, I wouldn't mind a discussion.
> 
> Are you talking about pre-1.4 now? Version 1.4 is lots faster. If you
> still have performance issues with 1.4 or other issues I wouldn't mind
> a discussion about that either. Or you could just keep using pkg-get
> if you like that one better. Choice is good. :-)

I'm not saying anything about what version I like or not, it is not
relevant. You know I've already given you several feature requests.

--
Trygve