| 1 |
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 02:42, Stephen Bennett wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> paludis/packages: |
| 4 |
> -*>=sys-apps/portage-2.0.51.22 |
| 5 |
> *sys-apps/paludis |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Is there any reason that portage and paludis can not live together. As |
| 8 |
this basically blocks any kind of migration or backwards compatibility I |
| 9 |
see this as a very serious roadblock to the acceptance of paludis as a |
| 10 |
supported (secondary) package manager. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> The deprecated notice should address the concerns of those worried |
| 13 |
> about people switching a Portage system to use one of these profiles, |
| 14 |
> as it would then spit out a hard-to-miss notice upon attempting to do |
| 15 |
> anything. Additionally, at present anyone using the sub-profiles with |
| 16 |
> Portage would get a profile identical to the default-linux ones, due to |
| 17 |
> Portage only considering the first line in parent. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
With the contents of this profile I see no reason whatsoever to include it |
| 20 |
in the tree. Paludis itself could easilly maintain a blocker on portage. |
| 21 |
The rest is so boilerplate that it has no added benefit of having paludis |
| 22 |
use the normal profiles. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Using the normal profiles would also establish paludis as a possible |
| 25 |
replacement of portage as primary package manager. Refraining from doing |
| 26 |
so disqualifies paludis from becoming a replacement for portage. As the |
| 27 |
only point in adding a secondary package manager is the possible |
| 28 |
replacement of the current primary package manager, I see no point to |
| 29 |
make any paludis directed changes to the tree. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Paludis at this point is just a third party package manager, comparable to |
| 32 |
rpm, and should be treated as such. Paludis could become a secondary |
| 33 |
package manager (waranting limited tree changes) when it has proved |
| 34 |
stability and has taken away all limits that prevent it from replacing |
| 35 |
portage at some point. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
If paludis does not aim at replacing portage, including an easy upgrade |
| 38 |
path and long testing, I see no point in using any gentoo resources in |
| 39 |
its support. This includes the pointlessness of making profile changes. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Paul |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 45 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 46 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 47 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives