| 1 |
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 18:39, Stephen Bennett wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:39:02 +0200 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Wouldn't the introduction of the virtual not fix that. This |
| 6 |
> > introduction could be done independent of anything related to |
| 7 |
> > paludis. The introduction of such a virtual would also help other |
| 8 |
> > package managers like pkgcore. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> That would address some of the immediate concerns, but not any longer |
| 11 |
> term issues -- the default provider in all profiles would still be |
| 12 |
> portage, which requires nasty hackery at system install time, for a |
| 13 |
> start. I'd view changing the system dep to the virtual as a good thing |
| 14 |
> in itself, but not a substitute for a profile in the tree. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The virtual is by default provided by the installed version. As it is |
| 17 |
necessary to install paludis to use it (even for system install) I don't |
| 18 |
think this is actually a problem. At the point where paludis is in a later |
| 19 |
stage of its development and acceptance, paludis specific profiles can be |
| 20 |
created. As I have argued before, I think that there are various enhancements |
| 21 |
that should be made to paludis before this can happen. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
In short, I don't think that paludis is ready to become an official secondary |
| 24 |
package manager. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Personally I would only endorse a secondary package manager if I can go to |
| 27 |
install it on my current system and use it without fear of losing things. |
| 28 |
Even if I decide to discontinue using it. Having to remerge (automatically) |
| 29 |
some packages for it would be acceptable, but I believe that it can be |
| 30 |
avoided. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Paul |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 36 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 37 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 38 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives