| 1 |
On Wed, 17 May 2006 20:39:47 +0000 plasmaroo@g.o (Tim Yamin) |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| So if it can give the same end result, it can be a replacement. So |
| 4 |
| hence paludis should be able to do what Portage + Catalyst now do. |
| 5 |
| Which you've not-so-clearly said is not the case; unless paludis has |
| 6 |
| now manifested the ability to generate bootable ISOs across nine |
| 7 |
| architectures, which it clearly hasn't. Therefore paludis can not |
| 8 |
| deliver the same end result as Portage. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
If that were the argument, that wouldn't be so bad (although remember |
| 11 |
that some archs can't use ISOs to install, and so only use Catalyst |
| 12 |
things for the stages). On the other hand, ISO building isn't a |
| 13 |
priority, since we can nick ISOs from elsewhere. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
-- |
| 16 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 17 |
Mail : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives