| 1 |
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 18:25, Stephen Bennett wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:29:11 +0200 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > The problem that I see with this is that it would tend to reinforce |
| 6 |
> > > the view that Paludis is becoming an officially supported package |
| 7 |
> > > manager, which at the moment at least it isn't. If people are |
| 8 |
> > > amenable to the idea though, I'm quite willing to set it up. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > In my opinion if paludis is not aiming to become an officially |
| 11 |
> > supported package manager there is no point in changing the tree to |
| 12 |
> > that in the first place. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Note "at the moment". We want paludis to be a viable alternative to |
| 15 |
> Portage for most users, and part of that aim requires having an |
| 16 |
> available profile that doesn't bring Portage into the system set. An |
| 17 |
> "officially supported" package manager is a pretty vague term |
| 18 |
> anyway ... there's a group within Gentoo that will support it, and |
| 19 |
> groups that won't, as with any other part of the tree. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Officially supported means that package maintainers must take it into account. |
| 22 |
Repoman (or another QA tool) checks for compatibility on it, etc. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Paul |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 28 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 29 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 30 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives