| 1 |
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 13:11, Stephen Bennett wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 12:14:37 +0200 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Using the normal profiles would also establish paludis as a possible |
| 6 |
> > replacement of portage as primary package manager. Refraining from |
| 7 |
> > doing so disqualifies paludis from becoming a replacement for |
| 8 |
> > portage. As the only point in adding a secondary package manager is |
| 9 |
> > the possible replacement of the current primary package manager, I |
| 10 |
> > see no point to make any paludis directed changes to the tree. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Using the normal profiles isn't an option unless they're changed to |
| 13 |
> include virtual/portage in the system set instead of sys-apps/portage. |
| 14 |
> That's the key change we're interested in here -- that the system set |
| 15 |
> not pull in portage when paludis is being used instead. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Is there a problem about both of them being there? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I don't see a problem in changing the profiles to include virtual/portage |
| 20 |
though where portage is the default provider. It is a change unrelated to |
| 21 |
paludis, and would allow easier development of any alternative package |
| 22 |
manager. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Paul |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 28 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 29 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 30 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives