| 1 |
On Wed, 17 May 2006 15:48:04 -0400 Chris Gianelloni |
| 2 |
<wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
| My recommendation, as Release Engineering Strategic Lead, is that no |
| 4 |
| profiles be added to the tree, nor any modifications be made to any |
| 5 |
| current profile, including base or the profiles directory, until such |
| 6 |
| time that Paludis is actually a usable package manager for building a |
| 7 |
| Gentoo release. I also recommend that the package is masked in all |
| 8 |
| Gentoo profiles where a release is built against, since again, it is |
| 9 |
| 100% incompatible and upstream has now said that they have no |
| 10 |
| intentions on making it compatible. As I see it, the original |
| 11 |
| question posed to this list is now a non-issue. It will *never* be |
| 12 |
| portage compatible enough, according to the lead developer, to ever |
| 13 |
| be usable as a portage replacement or alternative. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
So what you're saying is that until Paludis is called Portage and is |
| 16 |
identical to Portage, it's a no go. Which is clearly crazy talk, since |
| 17 |
Paludis can already be used to install a system from scratch -- it just |
| 18 |
does so differently. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 22 |
Mail : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives