| 1 |
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 23:30, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:00:10 -0400 Chris Gianelloni |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> | Paludis does not conform to the Release Engineering guidelines. It |
| 6 |
> | is *incapable* of producing a Gentoo release. The authors have |
| 7 |
> | expressed their intentions to *never* perform any actions necessary |
| 8 |
> | to work towards making Paludis capable of producing a Gentoo release. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> And what has producing a releng-style Gentoo release got to do with |
| 11 |
> using Paludis as a package manager? That's like saying ZSH shouldn't be |
| 12 |
> included in the tree until it can be used in place of bash. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
There is only one case in which paludis should be supported by the tree. |
| 15 |
This is when paludis works towards being usable as a portage replacement. |
| 16 |
If the paludis authors do not aim at replacing portage, I suggest them to |
| 17 |
start their own distribution or (fork / derived distro). |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
When paludis aims to be a viable replacement for portage, it must follow |
| 20 |
the requirements that hold for such a replacement. This means that at |
| 21 |
some point it must be possible to replace portage by paludis in a |
| 22 |
compatible way for all uses, including release engineering. If |
| 23 |
alternative ways to achieve the same better are provided that is also ok. |
| 24 |
A release is something to achieve, not some means to achieve something |
| 25 |
else. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
If paludis never wants to replace portage, but wants to be a secondary |
| 28 |
package manager it should not accept ebuilds that portage does not. |
| 29 |
Otherwise it would put itself in the position of a primary package |
| 30 |
manager, while not being capable to do so. Also a secondary package |
| 31 |
manager must work with the portage package database (VDB) in such a way |
| 32 |
that portage can always be used on the system where paludis has been |
| 33 |
used. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> You mean the *gentoo-x86* tree, right? The only reason some people call |
| 36 |
> it the 'Portage' tree is that there's not previously been a need to |
| 37 |
> call it something else. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
The tree. Whose cvs incarnation has been called gentoo-x86 for historical |
| 40 |
reasons. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Paul |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
-- |
| 45 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 46 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 47 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 48 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives