1 |
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:58:01PM +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote: |
2 |
> Many things were discussed in the last round of this thread (Paludis |
3 |
> and Profiles, in case anyone missed it), and many useful points raised. |
4 |
> One of these, which seems to have been largely missed in amongst the |
5 |
> other noise, forms the basis of this proposal. It is in some ways more |
6 |
> and in some ways less intrusive than the previous proposal, |
7 |
> and is also completely package-manager-agnostic. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> In short, I would like to suggest replacing sys-apps/portage atoms in |
10 |
> the base and default-linux profiles with virtual/portage, and removing |
11 |
> the python dependencies from them. For most users this would have an |
12 |
> effective zero change, since the default provider for virtual/portage |
13 |
> is sys-apps/portage, and the python dependency will be pulled in by |
14 |
> Portage when calculating system deps. According to my understanding, |
15 |
> this should also produce no change when building release media, due to |
16 |
> both Portage and Python being in packages.build. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> The only change introduced by this is that it becomes possible to |
19 |
> bootstrap a system with a different package manager simply by |
20 |
> installing it before 'system'. There are a couple more changes needed |
21 |
> to allow this -- namely that a few system packages have old |
22 |
> dependencies on >=portage-2.0.49, but these can be resolved seperately. |
23 |
> Any problems caused by packages depending implicitly upon Python will |
24 |
> show up only on systems not using Portage, and can be easily fixed with |
25 |
> the cooperation of package maintainers. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> I would like to think that this proposal addresses most of the concerns |
28 |
> raised in the last thread -- it implies nothing about support for any |
29 |
> other package manager, and introduces nothing that could cause problems |
30 |
> for Portage users, while still allowing alternative package managers to |
31 |
> use the tree without needing Portage installed. |
32 |
> |
33 |
> I am also aware that this falls roughly under what the Council was |
34 |
> asked to discuss in its June meeting, but since that seems to have not |
35 |
> happened, I'm bringing it up anyway, since I would like to get |
36 |
> something done here. |
37 |
|
38 |
+1, dependant on A) catalyst folk not poking holes in it, B) council |
39 |
outcome tomorrow (no point in changing it till they've weighed in on |
40 |
the whole enchilada). |
41 |
|
42 |
~harring |