| 1 |
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 14:24, Stephen Bennett wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 13:40:18 +0200 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Is there a problem about both of them being there? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> You can't use both on the same ROOT. The VDB format is subtly |
| 8 |
> different. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
So this would be an effort to prevent users to shoot themselves in the |
| 11 |
foot. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> > I don't see a problem in changing the profiles to include |
| 14 |
> > virtual/portage though where portage is the default provider. It is a |
| 15 |
> > change unrelated to paludis, and would allow easier development of |
| 16 |
> > any alternative package manager. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> This could be a viable alternative if the paludis profile is shown to |
| 19 |
> be a no-go. A seperate profile would make things easier from a |
| 20 |
> bug-wrangling point of view, since it would be easier to determine when |
| 21 |
> a bug may be caused by using paludis. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
At this point I don't see that paludis is ready for such thing. In any |
| 24 |
case I think that optimally a package manager does not require its own |
| 25 |
profile. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Paul |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 31 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 32 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 33 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives