| 1 |
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 17:55, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> posted |
| 3 |
> 200605171711.10418.pauldv@g.o, excerpted below, on Wed, 17 May |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> 2006 17:11:04 +0200: |
| 6 |
> > Let's make clear why I put this in. Basically I am of the opinion that |
| 7 |
> > until a decision is made to make (in this case) paludis the primary |
| 8 |
> > package manager, all official packages should work with portage. Package |
| 9 |
> > masked packages are not considered official. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Wasn't it stated that the mechanism paludis uses to hide ebuilds that |
| 12 |
> won't work in portage from portage is to mask them to it? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> IOW, this is already the way it is being handled. If masked packages |
| 15 |
> aren't official, and ebuilds that require features only in paludis are |
| 16 |
> masked as far as portage is concerned, then that checkbox can be checked |
| 17 |
> off. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
No, these packages are available to paludis, but not to portage. Basically |
| 20 |
making a case for the use of paludis. I don't think that the decision to |
| 21 |
replace portage should be made in that way. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Please note that what I say is not specific to paludis. Paludis is here just a |
| 24 |
name for any package management contender. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Paul |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 30 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 31 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 32 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives