1 |
On Wed, 17 May 2006 12:14:37 +0200 |
2 |
Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Using the normal profiles would also establish paludis as a possible |
5 |
> replacement of portage as primary package manager. Refraining from |
6 |
> doing so disqualifies paludis from becoming a replacement for |
7 |
> portage. As the only point in adding a secondary package manager is |
8 |
> the possible replacement of the current primary package manager, I |
9 |
> see no point to make any paludis directed changes to the tree. |
10 |
|
11 |
Using the normal profiles isn't an option unless they're changed to |
12 |
include virtual/portage in the system set instead of sys-apps/portage. |
13 |
That's the key change we're interested in here -- that the system set |
14 |
not pull in portage when paludis is being used instead. |
15 |
-- |
16 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |