Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Mike Auty <ikelos@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [soc] Python bindings for Paludis
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 13:17:42
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: [soc] Python bindings for Paludis by Duncan <>
2 Hash: SHA1
4 Duncan wrote:
5 > However, now that PMS is finally about to provide what should be a
6 > definitive description of current generation package behavior, with the
7 > announced intention to update this with new versions into the future as
8 > required, the dependence on portage as the reference will soon be going
9 > away. The announced intention for this, among other things, is to allow
10 > alternate package managers, such that it can still be clear when it's the
11 > package broken and when it's the package manager.
13 From what I've read of the PMS, it currently only describes the input
14 format it would accept (namely the format for ebuild files and their
15 contents). This question can be delayed until the PMS defines the
16 operation of the package manager, including but not limited to the
17 recording of installed package data. If the package managers do not
18 agree on which packages are installed or how to uninstall them, then
19 they are not yet interchangeable.
21 I apologize if this point has already been raised elsewhere in the
22 thread. I try not to get involved in threads like this, but
23 accidentally read a reply and thought this might be a valuable response.
25 Mike 5:)
27 Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux)
29 iD8DBQFGD6/0u7rWomwgFXoRAiT9AKCV/+YGLba3owSWEt/cbOPbyC3YrgCfbboE
30 +oqnTwPBGzD7ORY15VwOxoo=
31 =I3ta
32 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
33 --
34 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] Re: [soc] Python bindings for Paludis Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>