| 1 |
On Thu, 18 May 2006 15:26:06 +0200 |
| 2 |
Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Then copy the bloody profile, or temporarilly add some magic in |
| 5 |
> paludis that ignores portage and python deps. Not that hard to do. |
| 6 |
> While not so beautiful it can easilly be removed at a later stage. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
And if something really does require python? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> How far does that spread? Is this only for packages merged by |
| 11 |
> paludis, or does it spread? And what reasons are there for paludis |
| 12 |
> not to have a vdb format that will not confuse portage. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
A VDB entry created by Paludis can't be read by Portage. A VDB entry |
| 15 |
created by Portage can. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> It is very important that package managers coexist with portage. This |
| 18 |
> allows testing of that package manager, but also the testing of a |
| 19 |
> package / eclass on different package managers. It would be |
| 20 |
> irrealistic to require devs to have a different installation just for |
| 21 |
> testing packages with paludis/pkgcore. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Who's requiring devs to test anything? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> So you are asking to go towards replacing portage with a package |
| 26 |
> manager that is not under gentoo control? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Nowhere are we asking for anything to replace Portage as the primary |
| 29 |
Gentoo package manager. |
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives