| 1 |
On Thursday 18 May 2006 14:14, Stephen Bennett wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 12:18:41 +0200 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > If you really really need to have a profile, it might be discussable |
| 6 |
> > to have no-portage profiles, that do not include portage or python in |
| 7 |
> > system. These however must still be portage compatible, and |
| 8 |
> > independent of a package manager. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> In the arch-specific subprofile case, we'd likely be dropping any |
| 11 |
> features that would cause Portage to choke, and simply changing the |
| 12 |
> system set and virtuals around. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I know you would do that. My problem is not with how it is done. But what |
| 15 |
is done. The problem is not about portage choking. The problem is that at |
| 16 |
this point there is no reason to make paludis specific changes to the |
| 17 |
tree. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Making package manager specific changes to the tree/profiles is even more |
| 20 |
a dead end. This would mean that package managers are bound to a profile |
| 21 |
(making it impossible to use the package manager properly). It would also |
| 22 |
mean that every package manager would have its own profiles. A needless |
| 23 |
duplication that gets you nowhere. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
And these are only the technical points. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Paul |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 31 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 32 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 33 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives