| 1 |
On Thursday 18 May 2006 14:11, Stephen Bennett wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 09:19:58 +0200 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Jochen Maes <sejo@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > 1) If Paludis has no business in replacing portage on systems (shame, |
| 6 |
> > if it's better/faster it should) why are we having this discussion. |
| 7 |
> > I understand that you need a profile and with an overlay you need to |
| 8 |
> > copy the profiles dir (the whole profiles dir) but be serious that's |
| 9 |
> > only So my question would you be able to do tests without changing |
| 10 |
> > the official tree by copying the profiles dir in an own overlay. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> We could put profiles in an overlay, but it would require adding |
| 13 |
> support for inheriting profiles relative to another repository path |
| 14 |
> rather than relative to the current directory. Doable, but another |
| 15 |
> place to be incompatible with Portage, so something I'd like to avoid |
| 16 |
> having to do if possible. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Then copy the bloody profile, or temporarilly add some magic in paludis |
| 19 |
that ignores portage and python deps. Not that hard to do. While not so |
| 20 |
beautiful it can easilly be removed at a later stage. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> > 2) If Paludis will be installed on a system to test, and installs |
| 23 |
> > packages, will portage be aware of that installation, and will it be |
| 24 |
> > able to remove it (meaning Paludis changes the portage VDB correctly |
| 25 |
> > when needed). (i've seen you explain that Paludis can read it but not |
| 26 |
> > that it can write it correctly) |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Paludis can read a Portage VDB last time I tried, but a |
| 29 |
> Paludis-generated VDB will confuse Portage. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
How far does that spread? Is this only for packages merged by paludis, or |
| 32 |
does it spread? And what reasons are there for paludis not to have a vdb |
| 33 |
format that will not confuse portage. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
It is very important that package managers coexist with portage. This |
| 36 |
allows testing of that package manager, but also the testing of a |
| 37 |
package / eclass on different package managers. It would be irrealistic |
| 38 |
to require devs to have a different installation just for testing |
| 39 |
packages with paludis/pkgcore. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> > 3) If using an own binary format will there be an extracter for it |
| 43 |
> > that isn't part of Paludis? |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> Yes; it's called tar. |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> > 4) Will Paludis ever become a Gentoo Project? |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> Doubtful, barring some rather drastic changes in Gentoo and the way its |
| 50 |
> projects are handled. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
So you are asking to go towards replacing portage with a package manager |
| 53 |
that is not under gentoo control? |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
Paul |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
-- |
| 58 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 59 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 60 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 61 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives