| 1 |
On Thu, 18 May 2006 12:03:23 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| There is only one case in which paludis should be supported by the |
| 4 |
| tree. This is when paludis works towards being usable as a portage |
| 5 |
| replacement. If the paludis authors do not aim at replacing portage, |
| 6 |
| I suggest them to start their own distribution or (fork / derived |
| 7 |
| distro). |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Paludis can already be used as a Portage replacement, if one so |
| 10 |
desires. It's still kinda rough around the edges, of course. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
| When paludis aims to be a viable replacement for portage, it must |
| 13 |
| follow the requirements that hold for such a replacement. This means |
| 14 |
| that at some point it must be possible to replace portage by paludis |
| 15 |
| in a compatible way for all uses, including release engineering. If |
| 16 |
| alternative ways to achieve the same better are provided that is also |
| 17 |
| ok. A release is something to achieve, not some means to achieve |
| 18 |
| something else. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
No, a release is merely a means to the end of installing a system. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 24 |
Mail : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives