1 |
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 07:33:27PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:18:24 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> |
3 |
> wrote: |
4 |
> | > * An alternative to Portage. |
5 |
> | > |
6 |
> | > Paludis itself is distribution agnostic. It can be used on a Gentoo |
7 |
> | > system or on a non-Gentoo system as the user prefers. |
8 |
> | |
9 |
> | This would make it a third party packaging solution that happens to |
10 |
> | work to some extend with ebuilds. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> No, it works with a large part of the tree without modification. I'm |
13 |
> not going to say all, because there're no doubt ebuilds out there that |
14 |
> won't work (just as there are some that won't work with Portage), but |
15 |
> Paludis is quite happy installing system + X + KDE + Gnome + all the |
16 |
> stuff I use. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> | This would give paludis the big |
19 |
> | flexibility, not supported by gentoo option. This means that no |
20 |
> | paludis specific changes must be made to the tree. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> Why? Changes are made to the tree to support other packages all the |
23 |
> time. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> | > Paludis does not attempt to emulate every last oddity of Portage. It |
26 |
> | > does not attempt to be usable in parallel with Portage, since that |
27 |
> | > would prevent any useful features from being added. It *does* |
28 |
> | > attempt to work with all existing ebuilds. It *can* read |
29 |
> | > Portage-generated VDB, although at this stage we're strongly |
30 |
> | > encouraging people not to try that, because there will probably be |
31 |
> | > a few bugs... |
32 |
> | |
33 |
> | That makes it not suitable to be used in replacement primary packager |
34 |
> | or secondary packager roles. Leaving the third party role. Gentoo |
35 |
> | support would thus send the wrong signal. |
36 |
> |
37 |
> Again, you're falling back on meaningless categorisations. There is no |
38 |
> such thing as a primary or secondary package manager. |
39 |
|
40 |
<snip> |
41 |
|
42 |
> Ok, in simpler language: You are pulling this whole "primary / |
43 |
> secondary" thing out of your ass. It has no more meaning than "Package |
44 |
> managers that have the letter 'o' in their name" / "Package managers |
45 |
> that do not have the letter 'o' in their name". |
46 |
|
47 |
<snip> |
48 |
|
49 |
> *You* are the one making baseless claims. There is no such thing as a |
50 |
> "primary package manager" that is in any way more meaningful than "a |
51 |
> package manager that has the letter 'o' in its name". |
52 |
> |
53 |
|
54 |
Please talk to the OSX folk- they would disagree, since |
55 |
collision-protect was added to keep gentoo-osx from stomping on the |
56 |
primary installation (iow, to keep the secondary from acting like it |
57 |
was primary). Since you also spent a lot of time 'contributing' to |
58 |
prefix, I'd expect you'd understand the primary vs secondary role also |
59 |
(same with since you've ranted at autopackage). |
60 |
|
61 |
What he is driving it at is that either paludis is an alternative (yet |
62 |
on disk compatible) primary, or it's a secondary- you keep debating |
63 |
the compatibility angle, thus the logical conclussion is that it's a |
64 |
secondary. |
65 |
|
66 |
|
67 |
> | I can easilly come up with a way to do it without portage changes. It |
68 |
> | causes some stuff to be compiled too often, but does not break |
69 |
> | things. I can even invent some way that it does not "conflict" with |
70 |
> | portage VDB's. Why don't you use your intelligence to find ways to do |
71 |
> | things that do not conflict with portage (or people). |
72 |
> |
73 |
> You can't come up with a reasonable, usable solution that doesn't |
74 |
> require ebuild changes. Nor can you come up with a solution to the VDB |
75 |
> issue that is not an ugly hack -- you don't even know what the |
76 |
> requirements are. |
77 |
|
78 |
Re: vdb, the virtuals hack you've slipped in is paludis choice- you |
79 |
design your manager properly, the vdb backend can be swapped out. In |
80 |
other words, collect virtuals on the fly (ala portage/preexisting vdb |
81 |
compatible), or convert that backend to a format that has the virtuals |
82 |
flattened. |
83 |
|
84 |
Bluntly, if I can do it in pkgcore, you ought to be able to do it in |
85 |
paludis. It's just a matter of designing your repositories properly, |
86 |
you went for on disk virtuals to be faster at the cost of |
87 |
compatibility. Same for copying eclasses in, instead of doing env |
88 |
reinstating (you already keep a copy of the env), you went for "well, |
89 |
we'll fix it by copying the eclass in"- went for the quick route |
90 |
rather then the proper solution (again, if I can do it sanely in |
91 |
pkgcore, no reason you can't). |
92 |
|
93 |
Without clarifying the actual contents level difference (beyond |
94 |
collapsing fif/dev into misc), aka the "we can't convert because of |
95 |
symlink/dir issues", hard to comment on it- without an example, |
96 |
inclined to think it's not a vdb backend difference, just an unmerge |
97 |
strategy difference. |
98 |
|
99 |
~harring |