| 1 |
On Thursday 18 May 2006 17:44, Stephen Bennett wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 16:50:59 +0200 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > This is not a reason. It is just repeating what I just said. Which |
| 6 |
> > features does paludis have for its VDB format. And (per feature) why |
| 7 |
> > can't this be done in a compatible way. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> We store more information than Portage in VDB, to remove the reliance |
| 10 |
> that current Portage has on certain parts of the tree being immutable |
| 11 |
> and in order to support multiple repositories properly (there is no |
| 12 |
> longer a single place to look for, say, eclass data at uninstall time). |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Is there any reason that this extra information can not be added in such a way |
| 15 |
that portage will just silently ignore it. Which changes to portage would be |
| 16 |
required to make it ignore it (but silently remove it when a package is |
| 17 |
removed). |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> We also construct VDB entries for old-style virtuals, which will |
| 20 |
> confuse Portage. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Is there no way in which portage could be made to ignore this. Or to not |
| 23 |
create these entries (as portage can work without them). Being compatible |
| 24 |
with portage can mean extending portage such that compatibility is easier. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> > Two primary package managers is nonsensical. You ask for support in |
| 27 |
> > the tree for paludis, meaning that you don't want to be unsupported |
| 28 |
> > third party either. This leaves that you aim at paludis possibly |
| 29 |
> > becomming a portage replacement. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> At present I ask not for support, but for a minor addition for |
| 32 |
> convenience purposes. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
One that has more disadvantages than advantages as already pointed out. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Paul |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 40 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 41 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 42 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives