| 1 |
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 20:50, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 14:12:52 -0400 Chris Gianelloni |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> | No. It isn't. I said that it can not build a Gentoo release, and |
| 6 |
> | paludis can not.[1] Are you trying to tell me that I am wrong and |
| 7 |
> | that paludis *can* build a Gentoo release? I'm really interested to |
| 8 |
> | hear what magic you have used to distort reality to make this |
| 9 |
> | possible. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> At present, no, since we haven't implemented non-tbz2 binaries. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> | #1. Can paludis work with catalyst? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> No. Nor will it ever, nor will it need to. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Am I correct in reading this like you will implement a catalyst replacement? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> | #2. Can paludis build all of the release materials required by the |
| 20 |
> | Release Engineering release guidelines? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> No. Nor will it ever, nor will it need to. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Will you then instead try to create new guidelines that do result into |
| 25 |
development of releases? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> | #3. Can paludis build a portage-compatible VDB that can be used by the |
| 29 |
> | Gentoo Linux Installer? |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> No. Nor will it ever, nor will it need to. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Why will it not need to? Usage and support of paludis would be a lot greater |
| 34 |
it it could work (with limited feature perhaps) on a portage compatible VDB. |
| 35 |
You might work with the portage team to have portage be aware of extensions |
| 36 |
in the VDB and handle them smartly (ignore them?). At that point paludis |
| 37 |
could offer extra features while being still portage compatible. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Paul |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 43 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 44 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 45 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives