| 1 |
On Thursday 18 May 2006 15:58, Stephen Bennett wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 15:26:06 +0200 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Then copy the bloody profile, or temporarilly add some magic in |
| 6 |
> > paludis that ignores portage and python deps. Not that hard to do. |
| 7 |
> > While not so beautiful it can easilly be removed at a later stage. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> And if something really does require python? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> > How far does that spread? Is this only for packages merged by |
| 12 |
> > paludis, or does it spread? And what reasons are there for paludis |
| 13 |
> > not to have a vdb format that will not confuse portage. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> A VDB entry created by Paludis can't be read by Portage. A VDB entry |
| 16 |
> created by Portage can. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
This is not a reason. It is just repeating what I just said. Which |
| 19 |
features does paludis have for its VDB format. And (per feature) why |
| 20 |
can't this be done in a compatible way. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> > It is very important that package managers coexist with portage. This |
| 24 |
> > allows testing of that package manager, but also the testing of a |
| 25 |
> > package / eclass on different package managers. It would be |
| 26 |
> > irrealistic to require devs to have a different installation just for |
| 27 |
> > testing packages with paludis/pkgcore. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Who's requiring devs to test anything? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
If I am to be a responsible package manager I have to test my package |
| 32 |
before I commit it into the repository. At a point where paludis has a |
| 33 |
status different from totally unsupported, this includes testing it with |
| 34 |
paludis next to testing it with portage. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Besides this, to make an informed decision about granting paludis some |
| 37 |
more than totally unsupported status it is necessary to first test |
| 38 |
paludis. I, and I think many other devs with me, am reluctant to create a |
| 39 |
whole new tree to test out paludis. I also do not want to copy my whole |
| 40 |
tree to test it. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> > So you are asking to go towards replacing portage with a package |
| 44 |
> > manager that is not under gentoo control? |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> Nowhere are we asking for anything to replace Portage as the primary |
| 47 |
> Gentoo package manager. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
What do you want then? Paludis does not aim to be compatible with portage, |
| 50 |
so this disqualifies paludis as a secondary package manager. Two primary |
| 51 |
package managers is nonsensical. You ask for support in the tree for |
| 52 |
paludis, meaning that you don't want to be unsupported third party |
| 53 |
either. This leaves that you aim at paludis possibly becomming a portage |
| 54 |
replacement. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Paul |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
-- |
| 59 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 60 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 61 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 62 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives