| 1 |
On Thu, 18 May 2006 15:31:29 +0200 |
| 2 |
Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> I know you would do that. My problem is not with how it is done. But |
| 5 |
> what is done. The problem is not about portage choking. The problem |
| 6 |
> is that at this point there is no reason to make paludis specific |
| 7 |
> changes to the tree. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Changes are made to profiles all the time for the benefit of a package |
| 10 |
in the tree. How is this different? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> Making package manager specific changes to the tree/profiles is even |
| 13 |
> more a dead end. This would mean that package managers are bound to a |
| 14 |
> profile (making it impossible to use the package manager properly). |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
It would not be bound to a profile in any way. It can read and use any |
| 17 |
profile that Portage can. The new profile(s) would be purely for the |
| 18 |
convenience of those who want to use it and don't want Portage |
| 19 |
installed. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> It would also mean that every package manager would have its own |
| 22 |
> profiles. A needless duplication that gets you nowhere. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
And how is this any different from having seperate subprofiles for NPTL |
| 25 |
or no-NPTL, for 2.4 or 2.6 kernels, or different compiler versions? |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives