| 1 |
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 23:30, Stephen Bennett wrote: |
| 2 |
> Once again, this is going far beyond the scope of the initial |
| 3 |
> discussion. I'm not saying that Paludis should replace Portage, nor |
| 4 |
> that it should be an "officially supported package manager". The |
| 5 |
> question is simply one of whether I can add a top-level paludis profile |
| 6 |
> without people complaining overmuch, or whether I have to go through |
| 7 |
> the arch teams and make sub-profiles in 4 different places under |
| 8 |
> default-linux/. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Neither option. Making 4 subprofiles is even worse than one toplevel |
| 11 |
profile. The point is however that for a portage replacement there should |
| 12 |
not be any profile changes needed (Or do you think that when pkgcore |
| 13 |
comes about we should have current*3 profiles, just to support each |
| 14 |
package manager?) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Requiring a specific profile change just for a package manager is bad |
| 17 |
design. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Next to this technical argument, adding anything for paludis sends the |
| 20 |
wrong message: |
| 21 |
- It says paludis is usable in gentoo. Which it isn't. |
| 22 |
- It says that paludis will be at some point supported by gentoo. Which |
| 23 |
decision has not been made yet and can not be made yet as paludis is not |
| 24 |
ready yet. |
| 25 |
- It says that other changes to specifically accomodate paludis will be |
| 26 |
made at later points. |
| 27 |
- It says that paludis is currently useable. It however is not. An |
| 28 |
installed system can not be converted to or from paludis. Paludis is not |
| 29 |
tested nor testable (requires conversion abilities). Paludis does not |
| 30 |
provide compatibility with current portage, therefore disqualifying |
| 31 |
itself as candidate for portage replacement. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Paul |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 37 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 38 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 39 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives