When jasperodus wrote
In making his conclusion, the author says: "By picking the best features from each package manager, PISI is ready to be implemented in the mainstream distributions."
Any thoughts about this last comment?
I assumed that he meant thoughts about making the move to a Debian-base and still keeping PISI, which would mean "replacing" of dpkg/apt/synaptic by PISI for Pardus, maybe even putting it into the Debian repositories as an alternative to dpkg/apt/synaptic. But now I think that is not be possible: It is either
dpkg/apt/synaptic. No porting whatsoever.
And in that case:
The problem is without Pisi and Comar why do we need Pardus?
I agree with you, but I'm also with jasperodus. While I'm still learning, I now believe that PISI&COMAR is noticeably
superior to any .deb and .rpm packaging system, except that these systems have bigger repositories available. Loosing PISI&COMAR would mean loosing a big part of the "soul" of Pardus.
There is Debian,Ubuntu Mint etc.
Why we are still discussing this Debian I really do not understand.
I do, but I still agree with you.
We will have Pardus (pisi,comar,yali,tasma,kaptan) or creature?
I do not want creature. If Pardus will end let it end like this. But I (personally) do not want to see useless .deb or .rpm package based distro.
Indeed - therefore: Let's choose a base image (I would prefer 2011.2 but the now-existing "corporate" would be ok, too, but - I say it now: The maybe-at-some-time-in-the future-upcoming "new corporate" would NOT be ok for me!), then stick to it until we can build our own image
and by that get independent from TUBITAK and whomever as soon as possible!
You already said that, too.
Once we managed to have some technical infrastructure in place (a base image to download and at least one repository), they can decide (and re-decide, not decide, change and delay/procrastinate) as much as they want, it would not affect us anymore. If they come up with something we like, we would still be free to incorporate it. But it would be our decision, not theirs, and we would not need to wait for anything.(I'm aware that we might need a certain legal status, perhaps we need to found an association before we can officially present the Community-Pardus to the public, but I think we should start with development "in secret" already.)
If these distributions are really good then we would not discuss Pardus here.
I think that some are very good, but they have different target groups. Pardus has its own place. And I believe that the plans of TUBITAK will change that.
Please lets focus to pisi and Pardus.
Linux does not mean the richness of repository as I said. Stability, ease of use, configuration. Some how we are still living with Pardus despite its repo is not as rich as debian.
@Phix: Wow. O_O Thanks a lot! That's very interesting! May I ask where it comes from? Because there are several footnote references, the footnotes itself are not there and I would like to read some of them, too. Feeding headlines to google, it did not find anything but your post here
Also, the PDF about resolving dependencies was very interesting. (And by chance, Joe is my favorite text editor. Current version is 3.7.)
The "scenarios" (or test builds) may solve an issue that personally have: When something goes wrong during an update is in progress, the system may not work anymore after that. Carefully using a "scenario" update might solve this, I want to test that later on. (Although I know a better solution for this problem...)