| 1 |
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 10:30:10PM +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 20:56:14 +0000 |
| 3 |
> plasmaroo@g.o (Tim Yamin) wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > Well, if you're going to have a package manager that delivers the |
| 6 |
> > same result as Portage it must therefore work with Catalyst... |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Paludis can produce the same end result as Portage. The reason it won't |
| 9 |
> work with catalyst is that the interface is different. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
... so thus you claim it can produce binpkgs (I'm not bothered about the |
| 12 |
interface, but the support to produce said binpkg must be there and also |
| 13 |
to utilize said binpkg to install things)... and it can't. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> Once again, this is going far beyond the scope of the initial |
| 16 |
> discussion. I'm not saying that Paludis should replace Portage, nor |
| 17 |
> that it should be an "officially supported package manager". The |
| 18 |
> question is simply one of whether I can add a top-level paludis profile |
| 19 |
> without people complaining overmuch, or whether I have to go through |
| 20 |
> the arch teams and make sub-profiles in 4 different places under |
| 21 |
> default-linux/. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Yes, getting this thread back on-topic would be nice. |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives