| 1 |
On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:29:11 +0200 |
| 2 |
Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > The problem that I see with this is that it would tend to reinforce |
| 5 |
> > the view that Paludis is becoming an officially supported package |
| 6 |
> > manager, which at the moment at least it isn't. If people are |
| 7 |
> > amenable to the idea though, I'm quite willing to set it up. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> In my opinion if paludis is not aiming to become an officially |
| 10 |
> supported package manager there is no point in changing the tree to |
| 11 |
> that in the first place. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Note "at the moment". We want paludis to be a viable alternative to |
| 14 |
Portage for most users, and part of that aim requires having an |
| 15 |
available profile that doesn't bring Portage into the system set. An |
| 16 |
"officially supported" package manager is a pretty vague term |
| 17 |
anyway ... there's a group within Gentoo that will support it, and |
| 18 |
groups that won't, as with any other part of the tree. |
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives