| 1 |
On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:05:31 -0400 |
| 2 |
Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> What do package managers that don't claim, in any way, to be |
| 4 |
> portage-compatible have to do with *this* package manager that *does*? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I don't see paludis claiming that it is portage-compatible anywhere on their website. In fact they specifically tell you that it is not compatible. "Do not try to use Paludis and Portage to install things inside the same root. The config and vdb formats are not compatible!" |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> Why do people *insist* on trying to add so many levels of indirection |
| 9 |
> into their "discussions"? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Isn't discussing if paludis can build ISOs for a bunch of arches a level of indirection? This thread was originally about adding a profile. The profile doesn't affect anyone who doesn't use it, nor does it require any changes to existing ebuilds or profiles. It adds no work for developers who are not interested. The only additional work load would be to bug wranglers for users who file bugs, and this has already been discussed. Can we please get back on topic. Is there a valid technical reason against adding the profile? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
~tcort |
Archives