| 1 |
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 21:44, Stephen Bennett wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 21:17:55 +0200 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > No, these packages are available to paludis, but not to portage. |
| 6 |
> > Basically making a case for the use of paludis. I don't think that |
| 7 |
> > the decision to replace portage should be made in that way. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> To reiterate here, we're not proposing introducing any paludis-specific |
| 10 |
> features into ebuilds. Only profiles, and those profiles wouldn't |
| 11 |
> provide anything that would provide users who wouldn't otherwise want |
| 12 |
> to use paludis with any incentive to switch. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I know. I wanted to make clear the requirements I have that must be met |
| 15 |
accomodation for a specific package manager can be made in the tree. This |
| 16 |
holds for paludis. If these requirements are not met, the profile should |
| 17 |
not be added. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Up to now I have not been convinced that paludis meets those requirements, |
| 20 |
nor that my requirements are invalid. As such I don't think the profile |
| 21 |
should be added. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Paul |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 27 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 28 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 29 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives